[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)

* Emilio Madaio

> The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been
> published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal
> has also been published

In principle, I support this proposal. Reserving the last /8 to the «LIR
clique» is unfair to End Users who are not LIRs, but who may very well
have an equally justifiable demand for IPv4 addresses as any LIR. In
fact, I feel that the proposal does not go far enough - in my opinion,
both LIRs and End Users should be able to get the same amount of address
space from the last /8. I note that in the APNIC region, LIRs and End
Users can both get up to a /22 from the last /8. I would prefer it if
this was the case in the RIPE region as well.

That said, I do fear the practical consequences of this proposal. As the
possibility to get PA assignments will be dwindling, End Users may look
to PI (quite possibly guided there by their ISP who can be a sponsoring
LIR). The current difference in pricing between PI and PA address space
is a key element of my worry here - a PI assignment costs €50/year,
while becoming a LIR and getting the PA /22 would under the proposed
2012 charging scheme cost €1750 (€1000 sign-up fee + €750 yearly fee).
In other words, acquiring PA address space is almost nine times as
expensive as PI address space.

Furthermore End Users may feel it compelling to set up several legal
organisations in order to acquire multiple PI assignments from the last
/8. This problem is nothing new - under the current policy, an
organisation may set up multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s from the
last /8, but the expense of RIPE NCC membership is likely balancing out
the cost/benefit assessment. The cost of PI address space, on the other
hand, is too small to be a disincentive.

I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to
increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I
don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal
access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary
contribution to the NCC.

So to sum up - I feel that PI assignments should be allowed from the
last /8. However, if they are, I strongly feel that they should be
priced more or less the same (per address) as getting an allocation from
the last /8 through first becoming an LIR.

That said, I don't know if APWG have any influence on the NCC's charging
scheme at all. Is it possible for this policy to say something along the
lines of «joining the NCC and obtaining a PA allocation from the last /8
should cost approximately the same per address as obtaining a PI
assignment from the last /8»? Is that in scope of address policy?

(Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the
proposal.)

-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com