[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi

On Wednesday 20 April 2016, Hans Petter Holen <hph at oslo.net> wrote:

> On 16.04.2016 19.00, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>> I actually said "This proposal, if adopted, would pretty much guarantee
>> the free pool would not survive 10 months. That is one of the reasons why I
>> oppose it.”
>>
> If I remember correctly we have spent approx half of the last /8
> but the same amount of address space has been returned - so the amount of
> space available now is approximately the same as when we started the /8
> policy.
> See:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
>
> The complicated part for this wg - is that the charging scheme for RIPE
> NCC membership is NOT a topic of the wg.
>
> At the same time it is very easy to obtain more address space from the
> RIPE NCC: establish a new registry. This has a cost. While the possibility
> to establish multiple LIRs pr members has been suspended by the Exec Board,
> there is an easy workaround - just set up a new company to set up a new
> registry - but this has a slightly higher cost. This cost is still lower
> than buying address space on the open market. While restrictions on
> transfer on address space has been put in place - there are  easy
> workarounds for this as well: sell the company - or make a lease with
> option to buy agreement.
>
> As the RIPE NCC is a membership organization and not a government it will
> be hard if not impossible to prohibit such workarounds.
>
>
Can not agree more.

Folks here barely thinking about the "business" side of the story, if there
is an way to make profit and no risk, people would do it.

With raising v4 price, I would expect much faster depletion due to the very
fact that paying RIPE NCC is easier, more transparent in the process
compare to the market, and even cheaper.


> So the effect of the current policy is that new LIRs are established to
> get address space. No matter what the policy looks like. Some of this is
> used for building Internet services - some of this is sold to others to
> build Internet services.
>
> The question for the community is what is fair distribution of address
> space - now and in the short and long term future.
>
> Long term the only viable solution is IPv6 - but how do we share the
> common good in the mean time?
>
> --
> Hans Petter Holen
> Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net
>
>
>

-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160420/879f29ea/attachment.html>