[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

David Conrad wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> There is no law preventing them from utilizing addresses uniquely
>> registered to another party, but there is pretty strong policy in place
>> that will prevent them from being able to announce a route covering
>> those addresses into the DFZ.
> 
> Like the strong policy that prevented Pakistan Telecom from announcing 
> Youtube's /24.

Or at least, the policies that prevented them from continuing to do 
so...  But I take your point.

>> But the problem
>> we're trying to solve with transfer policy is different: providing for
>> the continued availability of unique global IPv4 addresses after free
>> pool exhaustion.
> 
> This isn't quite accurate (at least from the empirical evidence).  What 
> you appear to be attempting to do is to maintain the policy status quo 
> in the face of a different source of supply of addresses.

I don't know if I'd call it empirical evidence, but I think your 
perception is also a fairly accurate one.

> It isn't clear to me that this is actually all that desirable, 
> particularly since the main beneficiaries of the current policy (the 
> large ISPs) aren't actually going to be helped that much -- their 
> consumption rate is too high.

Do you have any suggestions for how we can improve the policy proposal 
to eliminate unnecessary restrictions while avoiding the negative 
impacts likely from a completely unrestricted transfer policy?

Thanks,
Scott