On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 10:06 +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > On 20 Feb 2015, at 09:45, Martin Millnert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Limiting entry to 1024 addresses is anti-competitive. > > Short enough for you? > > Evidence please. Anecdote is not evidence.
Evidence? It is completely a no-brainer to reproduce: Try starting a cloud service provider. I am, so example from reality. Current policy gives you three choices: 1) Follow the intent of the current policy and don't enter the market to compete with existing providers. The reason is that funding won't happen if the ceiling of the service is ~1000 customer service instances. 2) Turn away from RIPE NCC to the reseller market to satisfy IPv4 address needs. 3) Use policy loopholes and get 'cheap' address space from the final /8 pool. See math of https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2015-February/009567.html if you don't think my reality is evidence enough. I'd like the community reconcile with the reality of the policies, and see that the current policy, and certainly this proposal, is anti-competitive. The only way out is option 2. This proposal increases the importance and reliance of option 2. Is this what the community really wants? /M
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
