[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On 25/07/2013 16:31, Tore Anderson wrote:
> For what it's worth, the motivation behind 2013-03 has nothing to do
> with "the market" whatsoever. 

perhaps it's not the intention, but the consequence of the proposal is full
market deregulation.

> What this Evil Greedy Speculator needs to do is to register a few
> thousand LIRs, since each new LIR is entitled a single /22. Today, each
> of those LIRs must demonstrate "need", but this is merely a formality -
> if you have an intention of assigning one (1) IPv4 address to some End
> User within 12 months, you qualify. I seriously doubt that this
> formality is what has prevented the Evil Greedy Speculators from having
> done this already.

the current ripe ncc pricing structure means that each IP address has a
nominal capex value of €3.70 + third party costs.  So the nominal residual
value of the remaining .88 /8 is about €55m + a real headache when you
realise that you also need to convince some company registration office
that they should be ok about 15000 new company registrations if they
wouldn't mind thankyouverymuch.

Microsoft paid $11 per integer in 2011 for ~660k addresses.  So right now,
opening up bazillions of LIRs doesn't look like a particularly good option.

[that said, maybe we should put forward a policy to ask RIPE to create a
restful api for opening new LIRs, and to plump up Axel's medical insurance
policy for when he needs to sign his name 15000 times.  Just thinking out
loud here...]

Nick