[address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Fri Apr 26 10:55:57 CEST 2013
* Mikael Abrahamsson > Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43CGqq70rM> > > <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03> discussion has > ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) > adopt similar policy. Interesting, thanks for the link! > We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the > seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is > properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check). There are conjecture/speculation regarding the existence or formation of an IPv4 «black market», which runs counter to the goal of keeping the registry up to date and correct. I think one could make the argument that 2013-03 would counteract this to some extent - the fewer hurdles need to be overcome in order to perform a "legit" transfer, in particular concepts like need evaluation, there is a reduced chance that that the transfer will done without informing the NCC. That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to begin with. > If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it > comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both > inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the > other RIR has rules that hinder)? For starters, there's no policy that allows transfer of PI blocks. So if an enterprise, who is not an LIR, wants to obtain/buy address space for PI-like use, they'd have to do it "in the shadows", so to speak. (They would have the option of joining the NCC in order to become a LIR, obtain the address space, and assign all of it to themselves though, but if they have no plans of ever making assignments to downstream customers, I suspect that's simply too many hoops to jump through for some.) Also, I don't think an existing PI holder could transfer his address space to a LIR (and convert it to PA in the process), which someone might want to do at some point. AIUI, the PI/PA distinction was put in place to limit fragmentation. One might wonder if it has any utility now that all the space has been handed out. Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]