[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

[Chris Grundemann]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:13, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>> The policy text reviewed at the meeting was as follows:
>> Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4 addresses to the resource
>> registrant of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree and maintain
>> compatible, needs-based transfer policies that exercise Internet stewardship
>> consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050.
>> ***************
<snip>

>> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,
>
> The references to RFC 2050 which in the last 6 months has enjoyed
> almost universal agreement that it's not relevant; it was written in
> 1996 in a time and place that is far different than today, it was a
> Best *Current* Practice (emphasis added) "BCP".
<snip>

Comments:
1) There is nothing remotely close to "universal agreement that [RFC
2050] not relevant.
2) The reference is actually to the /values expressed in RFC 2050/ not
to the entirety of the text of the RFC.

Questions:
1) Why has your mind changed since you and Jason and I wrote this policy text?
2) I take the values expressed in RFC 2050 to be summarized quite
nicely as goals in the introduction:

   Internet address space is distributed according to the following
   three goals:

   1) Conservation: Fair distribution of globally unique Internet address
   space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
   Service Providers operating networks using this address space.
   Prevention of stockpiling in order to maximize the lifetime of the
   Internet address space.

   2) Routability: Distribution of globally unique Internet addresses
   in a hierarchical manner, permitting the routing scalability of
   the addresses. This scalability is necessary to ensure proper
   operation of Internet routing, although it must be stressed that
   routability is in no way guaranteed with the allocation or
   assignment of IPv4 addresses.

   3) Registration: Provision of a public registry documenting address
   space allocation and assignment.  This is necessary to ensure
   uniqueness and to provide information for Internet trouble shooting
   at all levels.

Which of those goals/values do you believe to be no longer relevant to
Internet number stewardship and why?

Cheers,
~Chris


> Best,
>
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org