[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal

[Geoff Huston]

Bill Darte wrote:
>  
>> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>
>>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> What you CANNOT have, is your cake and eat it to.  You CANNOT have 
>>>> prolonged
>>>> IPv4 lifespan without an increase in deaggregation.
>>> I don't often find myself 100% agreeing with Ted, but this 
>> is one of 
>>> those cases.  I don't believe that preventing deaggregation is 
>>> plausible.  I suspect that attempts to do so with move parties 
>>> interested in using the transfer policy (if approved) into 
>> the black 
>>> market to avoid dealing with the policy limitations.
>>
>> Okay, either I'm missing something completely here or 
>> everyone else has gotten so wrapped up in the idea of 
>> transferring space that nobody's considering the alternative 
>> that I think is a whole heck of a lot more likely... which is 
>> already possible and going to cause deaggregation wether we 
>> want it or not.
>>
>> Why sell when you can rent and keep collecting cash?
> 
> Kevin, I agree.  This is a fear I have of the whole loosened transfer
> policy.
> Given that the policy were put in place, this loosens not just the
> transfer policy, but the notion of who's in charge.
> I see that legacy block holders and those that can free up sizeable
> blocks can become local registries and who's to stop that?

Bill,

Have you considered the implications of the non-permanent transfers 
described in the RIPE policy proposal.

The problem with the rental and sublease approach is that it places the 
leasee at some risk for the leasor still remains complete control over 
the resource. As I understand it the RIPE non-permanent transfer allows 
the two parties to request a transfer of registration details from RIPE 
for a period of time, at the expiration of which the registration 
details revert. This allows both parties to enter into such arrangements 
without placing one in a relatively disadvantaged position with respect 
to the other.

As far as I can see this aspect of the RIPE transfer proposal allows 
parties to express their own views of this transition structure - some 
parties may feel that this is a short term arrangement and that IPv6 
adoption will gather sufficient momentum to obviate longer term need for 
for further IPv4 addresses, and while IPv4 networking may be around for 
a long time, the growth factors of the Internet will be expressed in 
IPv6 within a short time. Others may be of the view that this will not 
be the case, and see some advantage in expressing a longer term benefit 
in hanging on to IPv4 address resources, while not having an immediate 
need to use them in a network deployment.

In other words, if you are of the view that "rental" or other forms of 
short term use may be an aspect of the industry in the period following 
Ipv4 unallocated pool exhaustion then perhaps the question could be 
rephrased as: what forms of policy would allow the RIR registry system 
to accommodate such arrangements while preserving the accuracy, 
integrity and common utility of the RIR registry itself?




    regards,

     Geoff