[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF
drc at virtualized.org
Wed Mar 5 15:46:19 EST 2008
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
> 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
There are conventions and practices that most ISPs abide by most of
the time, all essentially outside the realm of ARIN policies.
> 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.
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML