Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Policy Proposal (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

[Jeroen Massar jeroen@localhost]

Per Heldal wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 01:45 +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> Some consider the internet a "virtual society". From that angle it can
> also be considered fair that the society's laws and regulations to
> evolve over time. From this perspective legacy-holders have had the
> opportunity to take part in the process and shouldn't be allowed to
> ignore it with no consequences. Today it seems much like everyone makes
> their own rules, or that there are no rules. Either way that is anarchy.
> What we really need to ask ourselves in the long term is if that is
> really what we want (considering the perpetual exceptions for
> legacy-holders that have been suggested in v6 space). 

Those 'perpetual exceptions' should of course never happen.
Note that the only people/companies/organizations who where arguing for
that where the holders of the so-called class B space who simply don't
want to contribute back to the RIR process and indeed don't want to be
part of the community, they just want everything for free and they think
they are special. Fortunately these where only a few loud voices and the
RIR community has decided against them. In the ARIN region one can get
/48 PI IPv6 which solves their problem.

Looking at the IPv6 allocations list quite a number of the 'legacy space
holders' have already gone through the LIR process with the RIR in their
area and have received an allocation through that way.

As such, I think/hope that the rest of them will nicely follow suit and
this will not become an issue.

Forcing those existing legacy holders to come into the RIR process
though is a definitive no-no IMHO.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature