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

[Bill Darte]

But there's always more to a game than recognizing the pieces and how they move.
Sometime subtle and sometime overt, strategy goes beyond the game to the players and the whole containing them sometimes.

It's not just about addresses...but while we're speculating.  What matter that the policy says we'll give all returned addresses to other regions....the liberalized transfer policy is only strengthened and the scarcity of local address more obvious.  Who gives back addresses when there is significant value attached?  Would you?

And should benevolence occasionally reign, my sense is the magnitute makes it mute.

Just my ramblings,

Bill Darte 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:02 PM
> To: Chris Grundemann
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2010-10 - Global 
> Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion
> 
> 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.
> 
> Fellas-
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>