[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02

On 21/10/2010 13:35, Sander Steffann wrote:
> The review phase of proposal 2010-02 has ended. During this review phase
> no comments were received. Without any feedback this proposal can't move
> forward.

I suspect people aren't commenting because - like me - they don't really
understand the consequences of implementing a proposal like this.

The obvious impact is that post-depletion, there will be the ability for up
to 16384 LIRs to receive a /22 before the /8 runs out.

There are currently ~7540 open LIRs, as far as I can make out.  This means
that potentially up to 8800 new LIRs will be able to open, post depletion.

This is good from the following points of view:

1. it removes a barrier to new entry to business.  Apart from the direct
reasons why this is important, it will also sooth regulators who view
barriers to market entry as matters worth investigating.

2. it will create a de-facto stabilising influence on any IPv4 address
market which may spring up.  I.e. 4 x /24 will cost €1300 + (€2000/4),
assuming a 4 year write-down.  Therefore there will be a tendency to fix
the lower bound of the price of a /24 to €1800/4 = €450 per annum.  While
relatively high, there is value is market stabilisation.

However, the proposal will also turn small quantities of address space into
marketable assets, and shelf LIRs are likely to pop up all over the place
with the sole intention of garnering ipv4 address space for resale or
rental.  This is bad for the following reasons:

1. rapid new LIR creation will cause strain on RIPE NCC resources, leading
to medium term organisational strain.

2. the RIPE NCC is very likely to put in much more stringent checks to
ensure that new LIRs are genuinely in the business of service provisioning.
 This will be a pain and will cause more paperwork / mouth-frothing /
bureaucracy.

I am sure that retrospect would point out many other advantages and
disadvantages.

My own opinion is that the advantages are quite significant.  The
disadvantages certainly exist, but are less significant.  Therefore I
support the proposal.

There is no right answer for a proposal like this.  Contention for scarce
resources is fundamentally contentious.  We just have to live with that.

If it turns out that significant implementation problems arise, the
proposal can be changed.  Nothing is set in stone.

Nick