[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-2

On Oct 29, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I agree with this concern, but you seem unaware of the possibilities of strategic behavior by LIRs. 
> 
> Consider:
> LIR 1, an incumbent, proves it needs a /16 to meet demand caused by growth in the number of its existing customers. 
> LIR 2, a startup, also proves it needs a /16 to start up
> 
> Your policy privileges any actor in the category LIR 2 and penalizes actors in category LIR 1. 
> 

> Question 1: why are the customers of LIR 2 more important than the customers of LIR 1?

They aren't.  LIR 1, being forced to jump through different hoops, is considered less important.  Or, to put it in less inflammatory terms, is considered more able to absorb the additional costs.

> Question 2: why wouldn't LIR 1 form a new company and call it a startup to get privileged access to addresses?

A question of cost.  LIR 1 would likely run the numbers to see which is cheaper:

a) create a subsidiary as you describe
b) purchase the necessary space off the black/grey market
c) sue RIPE for discriminatory business practices aimed at damaging LIR 1's business (well, OK, since it isn't the US, this probably won't happen).
d) migrate to IPv6 and hope no customer wants IPv4 access that can't be accommodated via NAT.

> Or, might LIR 3, LIR 1's long standing competitor, form a new LIR to gain an advantage in the competition for resources? 

You mean LIR 3 might lie?  :-)

> One could argue for your position by noting that LIRs who already have some blocks of ipv4 are in a position to economize on and/or NAT those addresses, whereas an ISP without any can't do that. That provides some answer to Q1. But it doesn't deal with the problems around Q2.

It all boils down to a question of cost.  Even economizing/NATing/etc. has a cost so a rational business will look at the various costs and do the cost/benefit analysis.  

Regards,
-drc