Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published(Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
As a broker in the IPv4 space, I support 2012-05 100%. We need transparency in transaction pricing. Otherwise there will continue to be black markets and unscrupulous operators. I view my job as finding buyers to match sellers and finding sellers to match buyer needs. Just as in stock markets, commodity markets, and housing markets, IPv4 markets require open pricing. Only then will most people give this market legitimacy and most of the devious behaviour go away. Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness. For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value. Global barriers to trade (think inter-RIR transfers) have to come down so that prices in one part of the world are not different from other parts. Although this is a little off-topic, the use of needs justification is a huge barrier to honest and open trade (as per Milton's workshop in Baku earlier this week). Companies are doing some very creative things to avoid the RIR justification process and as a result the registries are getting less accurate, and the RIR's spout community credos rather than really look at the problem. The good news is these problems should be gone in 50 years when IPv4 is finally replaced by IPv6! Sandra Brown President IPv4 Market Group sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com 716-348-6768 www.ipv4marketgroup.com
On 9 Nov 2012, at 13:23, sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness.
Please explain. In what way do RIR policies not support openness or transparency. Or are not open and transparent enough? Feel free to submit proposals which improve these principles.
For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value.
This has nothing to do with openness or RIR policies. I think you're mistaken too. First off, it's IP addresses, not "IPs". Second, current policy says LIRs are supposed to return unused resources to their RIR when they no longer need/use them. Can you provide an example where an RIR has reclaimed unused addresses from an LIR? [Some address space has of course been recovered by the RIRs and IANA. However to the best of my knowledge that's pretty much been unused legacy space that had been given to organisations that no longer exist.] An RIR has no way of knowing definitively if an LIR is using its address space or not unless the LIR confirms that. Finally, whatever action an RIR takes over an LIR's unused address space is decided by RIR policy, not whether those addresses "have value". For some definition of "have value". AFAICT nobody's suggesting a policy change so RIRs can reclaim addresses (and re-sell them?) now that a market in v4 space is emerging. Now whether an LIR will hand back its unused space or not is an entirely different matter from RIR policy or its openness. Perhaps those LIRs will want to trade their unused space. Perhaps not. That's largely a matter for them and their consciences.
The problem is that these "just numbers" became to have a real value, and this value grows fast. This is a real life, whatever you want it or not. If the policies will remain same as from time it has no values - it will lead to the dark crime market. I do not want this way to be real, but it becoming true now. So we need to adjust policies with that real life situation. I support Sandra. On 9. 11. 2012, at 16:20, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 9 Nov 2012, at 13:23, sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
Further, other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness.
Please explain. In what way do RIR policies not support openness or transparency. Or are not open and transparent enough? Feel free to submit proposals which improve these principles.
For example, RIR's should not reclaim unused IP's now that they have value.
This has nothing to do with openness or RIR policies. I think you're mistaken too.
First off, it's IP addresses, not "IPs". Second, current policy says LIRs are supposed to return unused resources to their RIR when they no longer need/use them. Can you provide an example where an RIR has reclaimed unused addresses from an LIR? [Some address space has of course been recovered by the RIRs and IANA. However to the best of my knowledge that's pretty much been unused legacy space that had been given to organisations that no longer exist.] An RIR has no way of knowing definitively if an LIR is using its address space or not unless the LIR confirms that. Finally, whatever action an RIR takes over an LIR's unused address space is decided by RIR policy, not whether those addresses "have value". For some definition of "have value". AFAICT nobody's suggesting a policy change so RIRs can reclaim addresses (and re-sell them?) now that a market in v4 space is emerging.
Now whether an LIR will hand back its unused space or not is an entirely different matter from RIR policy or its openness. Perhaps those LIRs will want to trade their unused space. Perhaps not. That's largely a matter for them and their consciences.
On 09/11/2012 15:03, Max Tulyev wrote:
The problem is that these "just numbers" became to have a real value, and this value grows fast. This is a real life, whatever you want it or not. If the policies will remain same as from time it has no values - it will lead to the dark crime market. I do not want this way to be real, but it becoming true now. So we need to adjust policies with that real life situation. I support Sandra.
I don't think that anything Jim said contradicts you. Jim took issue with a couple of throwaway remarks: "Other RIR policies need to morph to support open-ness (sic)" "RIRs should not reclaim unused IP's (sic) now that they have value" neither of which she appeared to justify. Nigel
On 09/11/2012 13:23, sandrabrown@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
As a broker in the IPv4 space, I support 2012-05 100%. We need transparency in transaction pricing. Otherwise there will continue to be black markets and unscrupulous operators. I view my job as finding buyers to match sellers and finding sellers to match buyer needs. Just as in stock markets, commodity markets, and housing markets, IPv4 markets require open pricing. Only then will most people give this market legitimacy and most of the devious behaviour go away.
As I read it, 2012-05 does nothing to increase transparency in transaction pricing. The RIPE NCC will not be involved in the commercial discussions around a transfer and will in general have no idea of whether money changed hands at all. Nigel
participants (4)
-
Jim Reid -
Max Tulyev -
Nigel Titley -
sandrabrown＠ipv4marketgroup.com