Hi, We @ as198988 support the proposal ... Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem..
I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with an ability to create backward compatible translation systems +1 mofos On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in >> use and they can't give up on it. >> > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, >> that would be a real benefit. >> > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > help. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > >
