[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Riccardo,

I'm sorry, but there is some FUD here that I need to address. Again: I don't care whether this policy gets consensus or not, but I do care about the quality of the arguments. That is what Gert and/or I have to base consensus on later.

> A new entrant would see his investments vanified

Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.

> by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012
> With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it.

No, new LIRs get exactly the same "free" /22 as before. Only now they can not transfer/sell it, they can use it to run their network with. That is not pushing new LIRs out of the market. Unless your business is to sell off address space. In that case: that is what this proposal is trying to prevent, so the remaining address space is saved for organisations that run networks.

> I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I am pretty sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP Transfert policies were accepted even 'cause in case of network acquisition or M&A or many other cases renumbering customers is very difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources is the most easy way to keep consistence on database.

We still have M&A for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. That is not affected by this policy proposal.

> We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making them able to keep their business running!

An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.

> How can my new LIR company can compete in the market going to its customer stating "be aware that the assignement I giving you if I sell my company will be returned and you need to find a new LIR and renumber your network,

Selling your company is M&A. That is unaffected by this policy proposal (important change in version 2), so no problem anymore.

> and sorry most important... I will never be able to sell you this block or part of it

Where did this idea of selling customers parts of an LIRs PA space come from? The receiver of a (part of a) PA allocation has to be an LIR themselves and therefore can get their own /22 for free. Even if you want this business model then surely setting up an LIR for a customer and getting a /22 for them provides much more than selling off a part of your own /22 ever can.

> End users will run far away from every new LIR choosing as default a LIR made before 09/2012. This creates barrier to ingress in the market.

Why? The LIR still has their PA allocation, can use it to provide service to customers etc. Nobody is taking a PA allocation away from the LIR.

> The full control of IP market will be in the hand of LIR (and PI holders) made before 09/2012. Barriers to ingress in the market.

I'm sorry, I don't care about "the IP market". Its only purpose is to get addresses to LIRs that need them. The last /22 allocation provides new LIRs with a free block to start running their network with, not to provide them with a free asset that they can then sell for profit. RIPE is about running networks.

> This is not leaving space to new entrants this is assuring control of IP market today.

New entrants become an LIR and get their /22. After that they can participate in the market of getting unused address space back in use all they want. It's not the RIPE community's job to provide them with new stuff they can sell.

Everybody can become an LIR. Those thinking about selling parts of their /22 should think about what they are doing. If they want to help customers and provide a good service to them: help them set up an LIR if they need to (which they would also need to do to be able to receive a PA transfer). Get them their own /22 that no-one can take away from them.

> Again: If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use.
> I am pretty sure that everyone here agree that this is not possibile...

This is not a return policy proposal, this is a policy proposal that tries to stop people from using the scarce IPv4 resources that the RIPE NCC has left for their own profit instead of for the good of the community.

> About 5.1. 4.
> plase don't don't don't state in the policy that /22 is for "transition purposes"
> In 2015-05 we tried to introduce ripeness stars and IPv6 deployment as a requirement for an additional /22 and at Address Policy Working Group in Copenhagen last 25/05 some of you experienced explained to me publically that we can't force old or new LIRs to deploy IPv6 and this is even the reason why the IPv6 requirement was removed from "last /8" allocation policy.
> Someone else said it's LIR responsability to choose how to use space... IPv6 will come....bla bla bla. You teached, I learned.

Apparently there are still lots of people that don't understand that the IPv4 barrel is as good as empty. I have to admit that I do sympathise with efforts to get rid of this FUD that IPv4 can still be "business as usual".

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160617/4a4376dd/attachment.sig>