[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 10:06 +0000, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2015, at 09:45, Martin Millnert <millnert at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive.
> > Short enough for you?
> 
> Evidence please. Anecdote is not evidence.

Evidence? It is completely a no-brainer to reproduce:
Try starting a cloud service provider.  I am, so example from reality.

Current policy gives you three choices:
 1) Follow the intent of the current policy and don't enter the market
to compete with existing providers.  The reason is that funding won't
happen if the ceiling of the service is ~1000 customer service
instances.
 2) Turn away from RIPE NCC to the reseller market to satisfy IPv4
address needs.
 3) Use policy loopholes and get 'cheap' address space from the final /8
pool.

See math of
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-February/009567.html if you don't think my reality is evidence enough.

I'd like the community reconcile with the reality of the policies, and
see that the current policy, and certainly this proposal, is
anti-competitive.
The only way out is option 2.
This proposal increases the importance and reliance of option 2.

Is this what the community really wants?

/M
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/08e93031/attachment.sig>