[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2010-10 - Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
bill at herrin.us
Tue Aug 31 13:01:38 EDT 2010
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:29, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> This isn't going to fly in APNIC. APNIC will not agree to the no transfer
>> provision. Furthermore, as currently written it sets up a winner take all
>> race to the bottom, a maximum allocation size would be an easy to fix this
>> without making things to complicated.
> The no-transfer provision is essential. Without it, a region with a
> very liberal / non-needs-based transfer policy can potentially suck
> all of the remnants into their region and sell them off.
> As one of the authors of this proposal I can say without a doubt that
> I would withdraw my support for (and vehemently oppose) it sans that
Meaning no disrespect, but you're arguing about nothing.
Let's have a reality check here. Prior to the general deprecation of
IPv4, ARIN will return addresses to IANA over our collective dead
bodies. There is a very strong, very obvious consensus in our
community against it. At a more practical level, there won't be any
addresses available for return unless ARIN deliberately favors IANA
return over fulfilling outstanding in-region requests, something its
constituency won't permit regardless of outregion annoyance.
Once demand for IPv4 addresses slacks off to a degree where you can
get even a weak consensus for creating policy that returns some of
them to IANA, allowing or disallowing liberalized transfers will have
become a moot point. In a declining market for IPv4 services, nobody
will be in it for the address transfer potential.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML