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

Hello everybody,

Dan has pointed something that is bothering me for sometimes now.
BIG-Players who stockpile IPs.
If we take a look at advertisements for selling address spaces,
time to time we can see /8 or bigger spaces are there, announced to find 
customers.

Now my problem is that, all of previous allocated address spaces ( in RIPE 
NCC region ) should have been justified, at least
by their network-plan in their requests.
Now if some organizations are selling their IP address spaces, it means they 
don't need them. Even worse, they may have been lying
in the first place.

Now, isn't it possible, that RIPE NCC develops a policy ( maybe there one ) 
to take back these advertised address spaces ?
because their initial criteria is not valid any more ? ( obviously  those 
organization, do not need these address spaces. )

I can understand LEASING some IPs for some period of time, but I can't 
understand selling them.

Kind Regards,
Saeed.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Dan Lüdtke
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:25 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment 
ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi,

The reason there is such a market for legacy IP space, and the reason new 
market entrants[1] stockpile space like the good old big players do, is that 
somehow legacy IP space is considered worthy. Why? Because it is running 
short. The less we have to give away, the higher the price will be. There 
will be much more and much higher valued transfers in the future, up to the 
point where the price is so ridiculously high that shiny not-so-new IPv6 
becomes a real business case.

I want that point to be as soon as possible and get the sh*t done and over 
with.

Until then, in my opinion, we as a community are making things worse! As 
Martin said, you can not get serious funding without having a serious growth 
plan. This includes legacy IP space. A startup is *forced* to play tricks on 
the policies or to make use of an escrow service or just call the trusted 
dealer at the east end of the RIPE region. The current loophole is the way 
we as a community, but also startups in deep need of legacy IP space, can 
save faces

If we start adding a “more realistic” price tag to legacy IP space, we can 
redo this every few months, and even in shorter intervals as the market 
heats up. Let the market figure it out and please, please let us not make a 
resource that is already short even shorter! Get the stuff out, it may even 
decrease legacy IP space price tags for a while?[2]

I am always in favor of policies and policy loopholes that lead to a sooner 
depletion of legacy IP space, so I would very much like this loophole not to 
be closed. I oppose this proposal. I would also argue for larger allocations 
if that becomes a new proposal. Martin?


CHeers

Dan


PS: Sorry for the tomatoes in this thread, Elvis, I don’t think you deserved 
them.

[1] There is so much allocated, unused space stockpiled by the big players. 
And we want to help market entrants by giving them time instead of space? 
This is not how the business works. It is all about speed and innovation, 
not about the ability to enter the market in 5 years from now and find the 
same market rules as today.

[2] I have no evidence for that, this is just speculation. Maybe Elvis can 
share some data as he probably has a better view on that market?