From: Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-157-v003: Temporary IPv4 Transfers
This message is from an EXTERNAL SENDER - be CAUTIOUS, particularly with links and attachments. Hi Jordi On 27/08/2024 14:00, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy wrote: Hi Noah, As I said many times, I was personally against transfers of any type, but once they reach consensus in some regions, the other regions are in disadvantage, so we need to work on that for the community good. IP Leasing or "Temporary Transfer" which is just another name hasn't reached consensus on any other RIR so far. What we have are 2 RIRs where there are not rules written in that sense and that close their eyes in order to not have to face legal battling maybe. RIPE NCC does have a temporary transfer policy. I’ve quoted it and the leasing policies of each RIR here https://ipv4.global/events/leasing-policies/ If anyone has a correction, please let me know. The good for the community is to protect the resources that are intended to be assigned directly by the RIR for the organizations that build Internet Infrastructure and connect people, not to organizations that explore IP addressing as real state. The good for the community is not to exist any kind of IP Leasing, one of the reasons being is that inflates the IPv4 cost in general (including for transfers) and end up concentrate its usage on those who can pay more, not necessarily on those who have a need and justification. The prices for IPv4 addresses have fallen, but may still be out of reach for some new ISPs or mobile carriers. For them, leasing may make addresses accessible as they sign up customers. I know some people who will lend money to buy IPv4 addresses, but even current high interest rates don’t cover their costs for the smaller blocks. Lee
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
