[arin-ppml] Some observations on the differences in the varioustransfer policy proposals

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:02:48AM -0500, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> I want to support Scott (at least I think that is what I am doing in what he
> says about RIR's and whther they need to have every answer.  I do agree that
> the RIR is primarily a registry, and at inception was not meant to be a 
> regulating body.  Could it be that we are getting too big for our britches?


	well - we are the RIR (at least in this region) and if you
	are persuaded that we have never performed a regulatory function,
	then i would be surprised.  a good portion of ARIN policy is
	regulatory in nature.  if you want to change that, it is clearly
	within your power to do so - the policy process is open to all.

	the real trick here is that the landscape has changed.  there is 
	very little left of "greenfield" IPv4 space and so the RIR's and the
	folks who make up the membership are coming to grips with the problem
	of "re-use" ... we have to realize that its no longer possible (in v4 
	space) to pollute the space and move on to "clean" space.  Learning
	how to live within the constraints of v4 poses two general courses
	of action ::  

		a) the (perceived) Geoff Huston - Its NAT all the way down
		   forever.

		b) we move from one address family to another - e.g. migration 
		   to v6 is possible and desireable.

	in either case, we have to deal with the fact that we have to figure out
	how to reuse space.  and increasingly, there are going to be folks who 
	want to help (regulate).


--bill