On 2016 May 09 (Mon) at 19:33:58 +0100 (+0100), Jim Reid wrote:
:
:> 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?
:
I did exactly that, we created a LIR primarily to get the allocation. At
the time we looked, the prices on the secondary market were approx
$10/IP, which is far more than the costs of joining RIPE.
:> 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.
:
:
--
When more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment
results.
-- Calvin Coolidge
