RE: [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

["Remco van Mook" <Remco.vanMook@localhost]

Michael Dillon wrote:

> We don't have consensus on this and the points raised by Sander
Steffan in his email on the 13th of June, have not been answered yet.
Here is Sander's email:

You know what, I'll indulge and repeat what I've been telling the past 2
RIPE meetings:

Randy Bush:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
355.html
- Transfering address space still assigned to end users

Is not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could accommodate
this if desired.

- Inter-region transfers

Explicitly not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could
accommodate this if desired.

Per Heldal:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
354.html
- Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR

Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable
database or setting limits to what people can and can not do without
enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has
is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed
out, what do you expect to happen ?) I'm not averse to extra limitations
in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this
current proposal. Time is not on our side.

- Legal implications for RIPE NCC

Anything we do, including doing nothing, has potential legal
implications.

- Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies
for a
  significant time?

The one viable plan I can come up with is to have ICANN buy back a lot
of space using the money they got from opening the DNS root :) No
transfer, reclaim or other policy can replace the global free pool as a
sufficient resource for new allocations.

- Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding

Is possible and viable today. Everyone can set up an LIR and get an
initial allocation at the very least. RIPE NCC has very interesting
presentations every meeting about the growth in membership.

Jay Daley:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
366.html
- Seller can choose who to sell to, not transparent

Life isn't fair. Not knowing who buyer and seller are, or not knowing
that a transaction has taken place is even less transparent.

- Discrimination of LIRs in developing countries in the RIPE region

What do you think would work and be less discriminatory? How about
transferring address space to a needy LIR in a developing country as a
(tax deductible !) act of charity? Not being 'legally' able to get more
space discriminates against all who respect the rules.

- Reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transferring

Given the fact that it requires more parties to actually do something,
and they don't get a return for doing that, I don't see how that would
work.

- Faster depletion because of hoarding

And nobody will hoard space if they're not entitled by RIR policy to
transfer. Of course.

- Legal implications for RIPE NCC

See above.

- Degradation of RIPE DB because of rival trading exchange databases

..is exactly what we're trying to prevent here. Rival databases only
evolve if we set limits on what you can do with ours. If RIPE runs an
accurate, usable and public database there's no business case for a
rival database.

Eric Schmidt:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
381.html
- Breaks the current policy that unused address blocks return to RIPE
NCC

Which doesn't happen on any scale worth mentioning. Only when VERY
significant effort is made by IANA/RIRs, space is returned.

- Transfers open up more possibilities for abuse

Not registering third party transfers open more possibilities for hidden
abuse.


ETNO:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00
293.html

- A transfer system can not ensure a process that is open, transparent
and equitable

Given any distribution scheme for a scarce resource, some people will
always be disappointed. I'm not aiming for a perfect solution because
there isn't one. Protocol DESIGN requires perfection, protocol REDESIGN
requires pragmatism.

- Negative impact on routing tables

Any increase in the efficiency in which we use the v4 address space will
increase fragmentation and thus have an impact on the routing table.
This is unrelated to transfer policies.

- Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR

See above.


But again, all of this is very interesting stuff but has little direct
relation to the text of 2007-08 or the rationale behind it.

Best,

Remco

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of
great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante


Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager.

This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com