Hi! Fully support your arguments.
09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <ma...@profisol.ro>: > Hi, > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view > regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding > that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point > of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the > pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - > which from my point of view is a long time. > > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because > it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup > fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the > current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. > > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be > enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, > from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > Thank you, > Matei Storch > [F]: General Manager > [M]: +40728.555.004 > [E]: ma...@profisol.ro > [C]: Profisol Telecom > > -----Original Message----- > From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Garry Glendown > Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 > To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis > Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > > Guten Tag, >> I opposite this proposal. >> >> It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get >> payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership > > I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs > that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a > /22 then transfer to another LIR ... > > Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) > should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - > while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the > limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree > of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by > throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the > market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so > limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years > (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not > completely rule out hoarding) > > Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... > > Regards, Garry > > -- > > Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions > > NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 > 661 25 000 49 | garry.glend...@nethinks.com > Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP > Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32 -- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
