[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Hi Sylvain,

* Sylvain Vallerot

> But they can also reveive much bigger spaces from buying them. Then
> they will no be constrained anymore by the fair use policy.
> 
> So what could happen is that large IP spaces get sold and used thus
> exceeding very much the simple /22 spaces you mention. Maybe sometimes
> "fair use" users could even be moved away to make spaces available
> for selling in the worst cases (I know this is a very pessimistic
> example but I'm pretty sure it will happen). Less dramatically never
> decreasing cases of "for money" or simply "bad" assignments will
> occur, just like entropy does (quantity of mess in a natural system).

Yes, under the proposed policy it would be technically possible for an
LIR to obtain (through transfers) a larger amount of address space than
they have an operational need for.

However, is this going to be a problem? Realistically?

With pretty much anything here in life, it is possible for an individual
or an organisation to buy more of something than he need. I can go to
the store and buy all the bread there is, even though I'd be full after
a couple of slices. My employer could rent all the office space in the
building I'm sitting in, even though everyone fits comfortably in two
floors. And so on, and so on... In the same vein, yes indeed - an LIR
could, in theory, obtain more address space than they have an
operational need for.

There's a perfectly logical reason why this doesn't happen, though.
Individuals and organisations simply have better things to spend their
money on than stuff they don't need. Not wasting money on useless crap
is economy 101 - money is a scarce recourse, and there's always going to
be something useful you can spend it on instead. (This is much like IPv4
addresses nowadays, by the way, which is why I expect 2013-03 will not
cause LIRs to instantly assign away all their remaining space.)

So to be honest, I don't find the argument that some LIRs will just go
and buy lots of IPv4 address space they don't need "just because they
can" particularly sound. Common sense tells me that if they have no
actual need for IPv4 addresses, they won't be spending money on them either.

However, let's for the sake of the argument assume that such LIRs do
exist. The space they're obtaining from another LIR is necessarily
unused to begin with (that's a current precondition for a transfer to be
approved which is kept by 2013-03). So instead of having LIR "A" (the
seller) sit on the space and not using it, the only actual change is
that now LIR "B" (the buyer) is doing the exact same thing. The space is
still just as unused as it was before the transfer. So. What is the
damage done to you, I, and the rest of the RIPE community and
membership? I honestly don't see any.

> I believe a good policy should ensure free space returns to available
> pool for fair use needs, but since allocation transfer is allowed it
> should not be an allowed bypass of such a fair policy.

I understand you have this point of view, however please realise: It is
not germane to the discussion of 2013-03, because the status *today* is:

- LIRs are not obligated to return free space to the available pool.
- LIRs may to transfer allocations directly to other LIRs.

Proposal 2013-03 *does not change these facts in any way whatsoever*.

Like I said earlier, if you want to see the policy changed so that
direct LIR-to-LIR transfers become prohibited, then you are free to
submit a policy proposal that does this. It should be relatively easy, I
think (start by deleting the entire «Transfers of Allocations» section).
Then we can discuss that proposal on its own merits, in a separate
thread. Please leave it out of the 2013-03 discussion though, as it is
irrelevant here.

> With time, users and LIRs will just stop using IPv4, but until this
> happens I believe we need fair use and conservation principle.
> 
> NB: "private" space does not exist for me : internet *is* public, all
> of it, and ressources are delegated to LIRs, then users, but not owned
> by them.

There is a major difference between public (IANA, RIR) and private
(LIRs) pools. The public ones are available for all to allocate from in
an equal and fair manner. The NCC is simply not at liberty to refuse to
make an allocation that was valid according to the policy.

The LIRs, on the other hand, are under no obligation to assign address
space to anyone. So while you are of course free to call the LIR pools
"public" if you want, know that the public have no access to them.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson