[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Wed Apr 14 09:48:14 CEST 2010
I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else in the world. (*) * Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which placed such laws on their respective books. It was generally considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have followed suit. --bill On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote: > > Hello, > > Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within > RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ??? > > Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the > recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) > sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for > non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case > i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.). > > > Regards, > Carlos > > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote: > > >Folks, > > > >As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of > >consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward. > > > >All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so. > > > >All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in > >it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory > >return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a > >different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same > >policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it > >is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it > >in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities: > > > >1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with > >the other regions, apart from Arin. > > > >2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity > >with Arin, but with no one else > > > >3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't > >make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something... > > > >4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to > >withdraw the proposal in this region. > > > >Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any > >address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It > >was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become > >available then it would be used for the greater good of all the > >registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the > >space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt > >that it was worth making a statement about. > > > >The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement > >globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would > >like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and > >put the matter to bed once and for all. > > > >I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping > >to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate > >how they would like to move this forward. > > > >All the best > > > >Nigel > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]