[address-policy-wg] returning v4 resources in a post v4 world

On 04/13/2012 02:36 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> Yes. I have read the policy. However there are transfers and there are transfers. A formal transfer according to the policy is of course bound by those needs-based prerequisites. Address blocks sometimes need to be moved between LIRs without invoking that: no back-room deals or cheating either. You just don't call those moves a transfer, even though that's the end result.

i'm convinced we both agree that we are not talking about simple announcements of one lir's pa by another lir's as.

the rest, which i think you are actually referring to, is very well known to me, too.
and i can tell you the examples coming to my mind are totally solvable by sticking to the policy, you just have to mean it (e.g. i personally never bothered as long as ip space wasn't really close to depletion). some closer research into this even showed that by just dealing with the very worst cases, the 'exhausted'-state would just vanish - and chances are, for a long time (i guess at least 5 years. i think if played right, actually it had the potential to kind of solve the 'hard' depletion issue entirely, while at the same time pushing v6).

> Suppose a hypothetical IXP

you just HAD to pick IXPs here, hm? ;)

> sells off its web hosting business. It keeps some IP addresses for itself and the rest go with the web hosting. The web customers can't be renumbered but they move to another company which might or might not be an existing LIR in the same service region. What sort of "needs-based address transfer" is that? This is a rhetorical question BTW.

too bad, because i'll answer that anyway:

first of all, just a little reminder: one of the first things every lir is informed about is that it might have to renumber in some cases. period.

the ixp sells off its web hosting business:
-> it stays lir
-> its originally demonstrated need for ips isn't valid anymore
-> its right towards ip space is reduced to what its allocation would be according to its current need

another lir buys the webhosting business:
-> it doesn't buy any ip-addresses
-> its needs for ip space are now probably higher than the need demonstrated for its old allocation
-> in this case it is eligible for further allocation - probably quite the size of what the ixp selling the web hosting business 'lost'
-> from my experience i'd assume the folks at ncc have no problem at all to handle the allocation-recovery and allocation-enlargement in the least-invasive way, i.e. moving the space returned by the ixp to the webhoster with maximum congruity as aggregation allows
-> in case an additional block is needed to be allocated to the webhoster (which is rather unlikely but possible), this is also done. in this case the webhoster would have to renumber a small part of the webhosting-farm.

all this might be done not by returning/reallocation, but by transfer. same thing, less "ripe" strings in the text.
and that's simply the way it works if you'd stick to the current situation, and _don't_ cheat or look the other way sometimes or change the fundamental policy of "ips cannot be owned".

=> the most interesting thing here is: the ip situation is identical to the "ok now we regard ips as asset and let people sell and buy them" case. if the space is sold, we have the same - identical - problem, we have to deal with aggregation and possibly renumbering in the same way. the only difference is that theoretically someone could simply buy up all the ip space he wants, maybe just letting it rot or abusing it in whatever way, and others had no chance to get any.

regards,

	Chris