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

On 20 Feb 2015, at 11:21, Martin Millnert <millnert at gmail.com> wrote:

> This proposal serves the purpose of shutting off access to 'cheap' IPv4
> for new businesses, definitely forcing them to turn to the IPv4
> resellers who in turn can protect their prices.

It does not. Nobody's "definitely forced" to do anything.

A new entrant who wants lots of IPv4 is going to have problems. [Not least of which will be acquiring enough clue to understand how to design and operate a network in the 21st century or later.] Maybe they'll buy that space from a reseller. Maybe they don't. Maybe they find reseller prices or T&Cs to be unacceptable and walk away, maybe they won't. Maybe they adopt IPv6. Maybe they don't. Maybe they do Stupid Things (tm) with NAT or ALG. Maybe they don't. Maybe they acquire an LIR or legacy holder who has a spare /8 stuffed down the back of the sofa, maybe they don't.

They'll have lots of options to choose from and they are free to pick from whatever combination of these best meets their needs or business case at that point. Prevailing RIR policy would be just one probably small aspect of those deliberations.

> It also obviously extends the life of the /8 for the very limited and
> specific Internet business use cases approved by the community.

That's what consensus based bottom-up policy making is all about. Get over it.

You seem to be generating a lot of unhelpful noise. Could you please try to focus on providing counterproposals which are technically sound and deal with clearly identifiable problems or gaps in the current proposal? Thanks. 

> For all other use cases, assistance to entry by the RIPE NCC is banned.

Nope. Nobody is banning anything.

The NCC is implementing policies which have consensus from the community and are broadly fair and reasonable. For some definition of those terms. Anyone who does not like those policies has access to an open and transparent mechanism for changing them. If their ideas have merit or the community can be persuaded that the new proposals are better (for some definition of "better"), they will get support.

Over to you..