[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF
sleibrand at internap.com
Wed Mar 5 15:54:35 EST 2008
David Conrad wrote:
> 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML