Hello everybody,
Dan has pointed something that is bothering me for sometimes now.
BIG-Players who stockpile IPs.
If we take a look at advertisements for selling address spaces,
time to time we can see /8 or bigger spaces are there, announced to find
customers.
Now my problem is that, all of previous allocated address spaces ( in RIPE
NCC region ) should have been justified, at least
by their network-plan in their requests.
Now if some organizations are selling their IP address spaces, it means they
don't need them. Even worse, they may have been lying
in the first place.
Now, isn't it possible, that RIPE NCC develops a policy ( maybe there one )
to take back these advertised address spaces ?
because their initial criteria is not valid any more ? ( obviously those
organization, do not need these address spaces. )
I can understand LEASING some IPs for some period of time, but I can't
understand selling them.
Kind Regards,
Saeed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Lüdtke
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 3:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment
ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi,
The reason there is such a market for legacy IP space, and the reason new
market entrants[1] stockpile space like the good old big players do, is that
somehow legacy IP space is considered worthy. Why? Because it is running
short. The less we have to give away, the higher the price will be. There
will be much more and much higher valued transfers in the future, up to the
point where the price is so ridiculously high that shiny not-so-new IPv6
becomes a real business case.
I want that point to be as soon as possible and get the sh*t done and over
with.
Until then, in my opinion, we as a community are making things worse! As
Martin said, you can not get serious funding without having a serious growth
plan. This includes legacy IP space. A startup is *forced* to play tricks on
the policies or to make use of an escrow service or just call the trusted
dealer at the east end of the RIPE region. The current loophole is the way
we as a community, but also startups in deep need of legacy IP space, can
save faces
If we start adding a “more realistic” price tag to legacy IP space, we can
redo this every few months, and even in shorter intervals as the market
heats up. Let the market figure it out and please, please let us not make a
resource that is already short even shorter! Get the stuff out, it may even
decrease legacy IP space price tags for a while?[2]
I am always in favor of policies and policy loopholes that lead to a sooner
depletion of legacy IP space, so I would very much like this loophole not to
be closed. I oppose this proposal. I would also argue for larger allocations
if that becomes a new proposal. Martin?
CHeers
Dan
PS: Sorry for the tomatoes in this thread, Elvis, I don’t think you deserved
them.
[1] There is so much allocated, unused space stockpiled by the big players.
And we want to help market entrants by giving them time instead of space?
This is not how the business works. It is all about speed and innovation,
not about the ability to enter the market in 5 years from now and find the
same market rules as today.
[2] I have no evidence for that, this is just speculation. Maybe Elvis can
share some data as he probably has a better view on that market?
