[address-policy-wg] Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05

Hello Roger,

Le 10/05/2016 08:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
> The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to
> regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's
> find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger
> company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's
> say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC?

According to RIPE-654, two seperate process remains : one is for mergers
/ acquisition, the other is for other ressource transfers.

I think that baring transfers of such blocks will only raise market's
price for prefixes and move the market from adresses to entire LIRs.
Therefore it looks unnecessary to me.

Clocking a mere 56 adresses per months is kinda slow farming process,
but still, it would encourage some crooks to create empty shells, set it
as LIR, farm a /20, and sell control (or ownership) of that shell.

Also, a fast growing new comer could have a need for additionnal /22s
faster than the proposed timing provides. Remember we're far from that
marvelous time where customer will drop IPv4 only services and devices
anyway.

Therefore, allocation of additionnal prefixes, whilst limited to a /20
per LIR, should be *justification-based*, not time-based.

I get that /20 is still not enough for some cases, but it looks like the
max size we can afford, should be enough for a last-resort CGN, and will
prevent some crooks from operating profitably.

Best regards,

-- 
Jérôme Nicolle