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

[Geoff Huston]

Thanks for your note David.

You have noted that the analogy with a title office has parallels
between deaggregation and subdivision, and the regulation of such
deaggregation. I think you are making that point that a title office
may be able to apply some constraint on deaggregation either by
applying some regulatory constraint in its own right, or conforming to
some third party acting in a regulatory capacity.

The observation I made was that the ability of the registry to impose
regulatory constraints was mitigated by its enforcement
capability. When a registry imposes conditions that are not universally
accepted then alternate registries appear - the IRR story is a good
example of registry proliferation and some aspects of attendant
problems that this causes (http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog44/presentations/Tuesday/RAS_irrdata_N44.pdf 
).

I'm not arguing with the desireability of aggregation in the routing
system, but what I have been saying is that the registry function in
and of itself does not necessarily have the apropriate enforement
ability, and that imposing such a burden on the registry in terms of
access policies runs the distinct risk of heading down the path
already travelled with route registries, which I personally do not
think is a desireable path.

kind regards,

   Geoff Huston

    Disclaimer : still speaking for myself, of course.