<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=RU link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1> >> I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? > We LIR. We need sub-allocation to allocate IP-networks to our clients (ISP). <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>You are not the only LIR!<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>>>You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? >We specialised on IPs. Just one of the best service regards IP addresses. Fast and good price. This is reason why ISP goes to us and work with us.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not sure that you are right. My company is also a LIR and serve our customers without problems. In Russia there a a lot of LIRs and I don’t think you are the only “right” and “kind” company on the market.<o:p></o:p> >Often LIRs which have free space doesn't have people or sales or something another to provide this IPs. They will give us this work. <o:p></o:p>Very simplified and rare situation. Then – why pay for being LIR?<o:p></o:p> >>If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. >What special do you see in using IP space by another LIR? I just see in nearest future. While people have demand and we can make rules and regulate it. Or think that market not exist and we will see what happend...<o:p></o:p>Because LIR is not for using – it is for distributing! Market, market… I’m not afraid of market – we are living in market all life.<o:p></o:p>My question was about transfers and – the thing which Russian company loves well –long chains of companies reselling the single product with constantly increased cost. We have RIR->LIR distribution. We have LIR->end user distribution. I think it is enough!<o:p></o:p> >> I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets > >you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC > >made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are > >not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least > >in Russia)! >No-no. It is different question. IPs are not assets. You are right.<o:p></o:p>It’s the same question! Because as soon as we speak about market – we sell or buy some assets or services on it.<o:p></o:p> Regards,<o:p></o:p>Vladislav Potapov<o:p></o:p>IIAT, Ltd.<o:p></o:p> URL: <a href="http://www.leadertelecom.nl/" target="_blank">http://www.LeaderTelecom.nl/</a> - IP- addresses URL: <a href="http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl" target="_blank">http://www.GetWildcard.com/nl</a> - WildCard SSL certificates 15.10.2012 14:31 - написал(а):<o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div>Dear Alexey, I think you mix LIRs with ISPs. If your company need IPs why you need sub-allocations? You just ask any LIR and get what you want then. If your client needs IPs and your company does not have the IPs – the client ask any LIR (which may be not connected, licensed by local authority and has pure distributing business) and get what it want. It does not mean you can’t serve the client with the address space (routing, connectivity…). Why the client has to pay for your mediation and not use LIR’s mechanism created just for that (distribution of IPs)? If you know more “cases” explaining the need for your offer – please list them here. Your “special case” is just very special to overcome much more “common” cases. I see one more obstacle for lifting the “need-based criteria”. If the IPs become assets you will have to pay different taxation in your own country (up to now RIPE NCC made very serious efforts to explain to authorities in different countries that IPs are not assets). And then the $10 for IP you mentioned will be fantastic deal (at least in Russia)! Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. <o:p></o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [<a href="mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl">mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl</a>] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:56 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses<o:p></o:p></div></div> Dear Vladislav, It is not just "may". It is real case. Permanenent transfer cost 10USD per 1 IP. It is too high. We won't pay this money. We ready pay monthly. It this case the best way to give legal IPs for us - make "sub allocation". But we have restricion in policy - another LIR can sub-allocate only /20 every twelve months. This is too small size. While we need assign now in several times more. And as soon as we will assign this space - we will receive additional requests, but the same supplier by current policy can't give us additional networks while he can do it only one time in twelve months. About "may" - it was an example when can be sub-allocated all space. While Gert Doering wrote about this case. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 14:51 - написал(а):<o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div>And for this very special “may” we should treat the whole existing idea as obsolete? Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat <o:p></o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>From: LeaderTelecom B.V. [<a href="mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl" target="_blank">mailto:info@leadertelecom.nl</a>] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:35 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [Ticket#2012092701011684] [address-policy-wg] FW: Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses<o:p></o:p></div></div> Dear Vladislav, It is just one case. Anyway may be some company started big telecom project which was paused and they have IPs which they can't use in this moment. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 11.10.2012 12:37 - написал(а):<o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div>>For example, in Russia you need 1,5-2 years from incorporation until receving all permissions (licenses, etc.) >from goverment to provide telecommunication services. In this case company can sub-allocate all space for some time.<o:p></o:p></div>>Alexey Ivanov I think this message is irrelevant (as soon as the new company won’t have much to sub-allocate) and misleading in the terms of time margins for beginners. Regards, Vladislav Potapov IIAT, Ltd. Ru.iiat<o:p></o:p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>