<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 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=NL link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1>Hi Aleksei, <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Seeing some of the LIR’s I’ve done some work for, I can guarantee that not all transfers that are in the list are being transferred to sell outside their corporate structure. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’ve asked on this same list about 1.5 years ago, if it was required to close the option to merge LIR’s which already have their final /8 /22 or not allow the option for transfers from a final /8 /22 to an LIR which already received their final /8 /22.. It wasn’t required was the reply, so I didn’t created the policy to plug it. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Currently I don’t see that plugging this will benefit the accuracy of the registry, so for me, I would not support this. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>To give an indication, not allowing a transfer from a new LIR will not fix the practice or what you try to accomplish ... <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Either you still have the transfers, but they are not registered .. OR they find other ways to do it, which are not listed on the transfer listing page. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd. Verzonden: maandag 11 augustus 2014 21:50 Aan: sergey@devnull.ru CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Dear Sergey, > I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Ok. I thinked that I wrote not very clear. > Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast. If the last /8 starts from digth "185" then we can see thansfers from companies: 23.01.2013 "TOP NET" PJSC 15.05.2013 CallWithMe 01.07.2013 VERIXI SPRL 04.07.2013 PJSC "Fars Telecommunication Company" 09.07.2013 Aria Web Development LLC 16.10.2013 Pars Fonoun Ofogh Information Technology and Communications Company LTD 17.12.2013 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 02.01.2014 Sara Rebollido Sueiro 24.01.2014 NOV'IT SAS 27.01.2014 Flex Networks Services B.V. 27.01.2014 IPhouse B.V. 27.01.2014 NLTM B.V. 04.02.2014 Dark Group Ltd 04.02.2014 Froehlich-Reisen GmbH 05.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Skylogic Polska Sp. Z.o.o. 28.02.2014 Netfactor Iletisim Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi 13.03.2014 LLC Arksys 21.03.2014 Xite Group BV 25.03.2014 ANDRZEJ BACINSKI trading as PUMPS & SYSTEMS 10.04.2014 LEVEL IP ITALIA S.R.L. 29.04.2014 STIS Engineering co. LTD 06.05.2014 Santrex Internet Services Ltd. 08.05.2014 AnDilo AB 13.05.2014 GLASHELDER BV 15.05.2014 Reseau Stella SARL 16.05.2014 Connect-it Telecom BV 16.05.2014 Mobile Communications (MOCO) BV 02.06.2014 A.M. Bayhan is trading as "DediColo Services" 02.06.2014 DediColo B.V. 04.06.2014 CLOUDGLOBAL FRANCE SAS 06.06.2014 Optimal IT Development SRL 20.06.2014 BIKS+ Ltd 20.06.2014 CJSC ADVANTAGE TELECOM 26.06.2014 International Communication company Persian Sheetsan Ltd. 10.07.2014 TELECABLE LTD 23.07.2014 "StoTelecom" Ltd. 23.07.2014 Michiel Muhlenbaumer 29.07.2014 EMY AUTO BEST SRL 30.07.2014 Host Sailor Ltd. 31.07.2014 Van Veen Beheer BV 04.08.2014 WBS Consulting Czech Republic s.r.o. <o:p></o:p><div><div><div><div> <o:p></o:p></div><div>--<o:p></o:p></div></div></div><div>Aleksei<o:p></o:p></div></div> 11.08.2014 21:58 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): <o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why? Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <<a href="mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru">info@leadertelecom.ru</a>> wrote: > Sergey, > > > what is the point of your proposal? > I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool. > > Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR. > > -- > Aleksei > > LL> Dear Sirs, > > LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of > LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already > LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. > LL> Any Pros/cons? > > LL> -- > LL> Aleksei Ivanov > LL> LeaderTelecom > > > <o:p></o:p></div></div></body></html>