[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA

Paul Vixie paul at redbarn.org
Fri Sep 9 15:18:43 EDT 2011

On Friday, September 09, 2011 18:38:04 Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > Also significant to this discussion, APNIC has reached consensus and is
> > in last call on a policy restoring needs-basis to their transfers.
> > 
> > Assuming that this policy (APNIC-Proposal-096) is fully ratified within
> > the APNIC region, I support 2011-9.
> I read this as yet another attempt to funnel resources out of ARIN, to
> other regions. IANA is depleted, they're no longer part of the
> picture. When can we stop trying to give resources back to them?

is it a clear benefit to operators (enterprise or isp) in our region to be 
able to grow their networks when other operators in other regions cannot?  
that is, in an network economy, does it make sense to grow only one side of 
the prospective transactions?

note, i'm not saying it doesn't make sense, i'm honestly inquiring.  to me the 
reason why inter-rir transfers might be bad is if once a resource crosses an 
rir boundary it was subject to non-needs-based subsequent transfer.  i'm not 
in favour of addresses being held by entities who are not using them, both 
because of the possibility of speculation / artificial scarcity / manipulation 
and because of the possibility of the internet not growing when it otherwise 
could just because too many operators have too much forward reserve.

in that context, does one region need a forward reserve that's well in excess 
of other regions?  (wouldn't we just end up talking to ourselves?)

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list