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

Hi Garry,

On 6/9/2015 8:22 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
> Hi,
>> Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my
>> opinion the adoption of this policy will :
>>  - increase membership fees
> Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by
> abusing the policy to limit IPv4 usage will be incentivised NOT to keep
> opening LIRs and by that not bring additional income to RIPE? I doubt
> that not gaining from hoarders will increase cost for RIPE and therefore
> its members ... last time I checked, RIPE's income was rather stable and
> usually well on the black side ... why do you believe this policy change
> will alter that?

It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee.
I think it can be considered a "hoarding tax" which at this moment seems
quite considerable when compared to the profit of the "hoarder". We all
benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore
the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established.

>>  - increase IPv4 address prices
> ... but only for companies unwilling to get bye with what they have and
> push IPv6 deployment and growth ... of course this may put some strain
> to newcomers, but imagine the strain on newcomers if they can't receive
> ANY IPv4 from RIRs anymore because hoarders have ensured that RIRs don't
> have any available anymore, thus requiring them to get their required
> IPv4 address on the market for even higher prices ...

I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the
world, long time before the "exhaustion". It's not that easy to achieve
full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of IPv4
resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give up on
IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't exclude
the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam
maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments and their
problems.

>>  - help the last /8 pool become even larger
> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of
> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies
> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job
> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are
> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ...

Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions
that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will
push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be
IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many
will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision.

>> 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".
> An additional /22 you give out today because you don't see a problem
> TODAY can't just be recovered tomorrow when a new LIR needs a /22 and
> you don't have any available anymore ... that's why the community HAS to
> think of tomorrow's problems instead of just living in the today!

All IPs that are bought today cost money and I'm sure everyone that gets
them, needs them. It's not like in the past when you could get a /12 for
free. Therefore I would try to help those that need today IPs and not
those that keep them waiting for the price to grow.

>> 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.
> With the growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, prices will go up, making
> even the currently discussed policy change unsuited to keep people from
> gaming the system ... at current rate, the cost for a /22 network
> through LIR registration is roughly at 2€/IP. The policy change raises
> that to 4€ ... what if you can get 10€/IP? 150% profit for a /22 is a
> pretty convincing business model ...

Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by
real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a
free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there
would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from
those who don't use them, that would really help.

Ciprian Nica
IP Broker Ltd.