[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
marty at akamai.com
Wed Oct 13 14:01:48 EDT 2010
On 10/13/10 12:53 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> In a message written on Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:45:31AM -0600, Chris
> Grundemann wrote:
>> Thanks for the excellent feedback Leo. I do want to point out that
>> when crafting this ultra-simple policy statement, we chose our words
>> very carefully: Internet stewardship *and* the _values_ expressed in
>> RFC2050 is meant to convey the spirit by which the RIRs should
>> interact ("do the right thing") without binding them explicitly to any
>> particular (possibly outdated) text.
> For the record, I am ok with:
> Policy statement: Any RIR's member may transfer IPv4 addresses to the
> member of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree.
> Your second sentence should be redundant, as the RIR's were formed
> under 2050, and should persue stweardship moving forward as a result.
> Including it though I think provides the impression of some limitations
> that are at best vague, and likely non-existant.
> I used to be worried about a rich company buying up IPv4 space to
> keep it from their competitors. As time as passed, I no longer
> worry about that much.
A rich company might also buy up address space to insure that their need is
going to be met. That's opposite of the nefarious condition you describe.
The "thwart a competitor" scenario is going to be too expensive and the best
way to thwart anyone is going to be to dual stack and beat them to the
proverbial punch IMHO.
More information about the ARIN-PPML