Multihoming sites and ARIN

[davidk at ISI.EDU]

Scott,

> Scott Huddle writes :
> 
> Observation 5,
> 
> The creation of markets for IP space and routing slots obviates
> the need for ARIN as a policy body for allocation (i.e., 
> the market does the allocation), further with a true market
> we can now have competing registries for IP space -- similar
> to the IAHC results, registries do registry work, rather
> than attempt to regulate market forces.  

I view this as a possible next step. It is already difficult enough to
split off the IP registration services from NSI. It doesn't make sense to
split off and do a major change in the way registries work at the same
time. The IAHC results are still a proposal and are not implemented yet.
I don't think it makes sense to start experimenting with domain and all
of the IP space at the same time. What do we do if the competing
registrars idea doesn't even work for the much easier (and less critical)
task of allocating domain names? Let's wait for doing this until we know
how the IAHC system will work in practise *and* realize at the same time
that there are also some fundamental differences between IPv4 space
(limited) and domain space (virtually unlimited) which might make the two
spaces incomparable. 

The RIPE/APNIC systems are proven solutions which might not be perfect
but are proven to work. There is currently a window of opportunity to
make the IP registrations an independent (from NSI) non-profit business
in a very smooth way instead of difficult situations that will arise when
certain contracts run out ... At the same time, members will finally get
a say in ARINs policy which was not the case in the past. I feel that it
is best to take this oppotunity and talk about changes in registry
policies later (at the pagan at apnic.net mail list & in a global context),

David K.
---