[arin-ppml] Update on 2009-3: Global Policy for the Allocationof IPv4 Blocks to RIRs

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Milton L Mueller<mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> by another RIR (or that should be managed by another RIR) well why
>> can't they just horse trade among each other to say well I have this
>> block that you could aggregate with some of your stuff and
>> I'll give it to you, with the expectation that you will give me some blocks you
>> have that are best managed by me.
>
> This strikes me as a pretty good idea. (Details need to be worked out, obviously)
> While one might want to keep voluntary return to IANA as an option, why not also authorize direct trades among RIRs (just in-kind trades, not purchases).
>
> Why centralize a function and introduce an intermediary if you don't have to?
>


It is a decent  idea. I'm skeptical that the other RIR's would sign up
for such a system since a) they may want it to apply to legacy space
only since none are likely to hand over their inventories at the end
(at least greater than 1 x /8) and b) that means that ARIN would be
the heaviest outflow by default. How about if AfriNIC and LACNIC stop
taking /8's and start taking fragments from APNIC, RIPE, and ARIN
instead? That might promote better utilization. (Details..routing
table slots, etc...but they are going to get used one way or
another....)

FWIW, voluntary return of address space to ICANN (IANA) has always
been an option regardless of there being a policy in existence to
specifically state it. It's not like ICANN would say "no", I think we
just can't be sure what they'd do with it if we didn't have it
codified. Modifying the existing ratified policy with a sentence like
"All returned IPv4 space regardless of it's class will be remanded to
the free pool and allocated on a needs basis". That change would
likely fly through the RIR PDP's and accomplish exactly what we are
"trying" to accomplish here without all of the politics and
appearances of land-grabs.

Best,

Martin