[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi,

Each of us has his passions and wants to shout his opinion. I didn't get
involved at all in this discussion even though I was aware of every
argument from the begining.

The RIPE community is not like other masses that can be easily
manipulated as most are very intelligent IT professionals. Therefore I
considered is better to step asside, as I'm in the IPv4 brokering business.

I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical,
analysis of the policy effects.

Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my
opinion the adoption of this policy will :
 - increase membership fees
 - increase IPv4 address prices
 - help the last /8 pool become even larger

A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not
care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's
issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool
that would just keep growing "forever".

Theese are my arguments against the policy.

The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware
of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware
that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Ciprian


On 6/9/2015 6:56 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>> We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's
>> in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in
>> any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the
>> entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to
>> preserve them, but that's in the past.
> 
> Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but
> since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would
> hit the wall.  IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, 
> with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled),
> but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more
> IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than
> they would like to have.
> 
> And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound
> like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that
> they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8
> policy.  This proposal helps achieve that goal.
> 
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
>