[members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple

> On 16.02.2016, at 16:58, Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 16 Feb 2016, at 15:13, Matthias Šubik wrote:
> 
>> This is essential what we want: make *new* IPv4 deployment more expensive, to all migrate to a hopeful brighter IPv6 future.
> 
> What you are saying is that the RIPE NCC should price out new entrant from IPv4.
Clarification: 
*new* deployment for *old* LIR (cloned LIR). 
b/c instead of opening another LIR, just to grow their IPv4 allocation by /22 they would need to maintain that second LIR longer.

read again: a new LIR gets a /22 under /8, and should be interested in using it, not selling it, right?

> Do you think that it may look a lot like a Cartel behaviour falling under european antitrust laws ?
I think this question is obsolete.
> (This is a rhetorical question - let’s not start this debate - I just want to show a possible shortcoming of this line of thought)
I think you misunderstood my idea. I was talking about old players opening new LIRs *instead* of migrating to IPv6.
> 
>> Old players also have incentive to sell address space, instead of hoarding it, as a possible IPv6 world devalues the asset.
> 
> If the price goes up .. I would not SELL such an asset: the transfer or purchase of IP are not the only way to give another organisation access to some IP space.
Clarification:
If IPv4 is of value right now, but we succeed in making v6 more attractive, any holder of large unused allocation is tempted to sell them, as they are on their peak of value.
> If you have an ASN and IP space you can simply ‘lease it’ by letting the organisation route your traffic and use the IP and milk the asset even more.
This would suggest that is has perspective to work for a longer period of time. 
> 
> So whatever rule in put in place it may simply may do NOTHING to prevent cross organisation IP usage.
There is no intend to limit usage, there is already an intend to limit new allocations to new players. And exactly that is what we should reach for.
I do migrate to v6, I want all others to migrate as well, so there is no unfair competition on old kit (v4 only).
 
> And some serious thought must be given to the real effectiveness of the change proposed.
Absolutely. 
I think nobody doubt that.

Matthias