>While it’s possible, it seems unlikely that someone would become an LIR just >to get a /24 or even a /22 from the NCC. That would cost them a minimum of >EUR3400 in NCC fees: an initial sign-up of EUR2000 and annual membership of >EUR1400. Plus some >overheads for paperwork, legal fees and so on. That’s >roughly $5 per IPv4 address, assuming they got a /22. Which is reasonably >close to the price in the secondary market IIUC. The addresses available there >generally don’t come with the same overheads >that come with NCC membership, >so they may well be considered more valuable/attractive.
At the moment many new LIRs are just joining the RIPE NCC to get small blocks, that is happening. >While I oppose 2015-5 in principle, I’m curious why you think the proposal has >to favour small LIRs at the expense of other LIRs. And disadvantage future >small LIRs once there’s no IPv4 left at the NCC. >That doesn’t seem fair. Unless "something which benefits me and/or my >customers at someone else’s expense” is the definition of fair. >BTW, the current policy applies to ALL IPv4 allocations by the NCC, not just >those from 185/8. It’s loosely called the last /8 policy. Which is a bit >confusing since it applies to more than the NCC’s allocations out of that last >/8. By looking at the current available IPv4 pool, (not that much change since 2012) considering the conditions of the new policy for handing out additional /22 and keep the 185/8 untouched and leave it for new-comers. >You're mistaken. Please read 2015-05 again. I suggest you pay closer attention >to this bit: >b. Arguments opposing the proposal > Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool. Those arguments are the ones that the proposers foresaw and used to kick off the discussion. Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 4:34 AM To: Arash Naderpour <[email protected]> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] agreement > On 9 May 2016, at 14:25, Arash Naderpour <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the real world, even when a customer needs for example an /24, they need > to become an LIR (and get the /22 from the last /8) as their old LIR cannot > provide them with additional blocks. That also speed up the depletion of last > /8. have you considered these when you made your objection? Well I know I did. Setting up an LIR just to get a /22 is a possibility. The NCC’s checks on new LIRs should be robust enough to identify this sort of behaviour. Questions would be asked if there was an unusual increase in the rate of membership applications and related anomalies. While it’s possible, it seems unlikely that someone would become an LIR just to get a /24 or even a /22 from the NCC. That would cost them a minimum of EUR3400 in NCC fees: an initial sign-up of EUR2000 and annual membership of EUR1400. Plus some overheads for paperwork, legal fees and so on. That’s roughly $5 per IPv4 address, assuming they got a /22. Which is reasonably close to the price in the secondary market IIUC. The addresses available there generally don’t come with the same overheads that come with NCC membership, so they may well be considered more valuable/attractive. If people set up LIRs just to get a /22, increasing the NCC (sign-up?) fees would be a quick and effective way to stop that behaviour. ie Once the cost of IPv4 space on the secondary market is less than the NCC fees, why would someone come to the NCC and deplete its pool? > This policy is not increasing the demand for IPv4, It creates a possibility > for small LIRs to receive additional blocks (not from last /8) based on some > conditions, While I oppose 2015-5 in principle, I’m curious why you think the proposal has to favour small LIRs at the expense of other LIRs. And disadvantage future small LIRs once there’s no IPv4 left at the NCC. That doesn’t seem fair. Unless "something which benefits me and/or my customers at someone else’s expense” is the definition of fair. BTW, the current policy applies to ALL IPv4 allocations by the NCC, not just those from 185/8. It’s loosely called the last /8 policy. Which is a bit confusing since it applies to more than the NCC’s allocations out of that last /8. > so no change in depletion rate from my point of view. You're mistaken. Please read 2015-05 again. I suggest you pay closer attention to this bit: b. Arguments opposing the proposal Further allocations will speed up the depletion of the free pool.
