[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2010-10 - Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion

William Herrin 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
> provision.


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.

Bill Herrin

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 mailing list