[address-policy-wg] common sense and 2013-03

* Jim Reid

> I fear we're in danger of rat-holing and trying to over-engineer
> 2013-03. It's all very well for the proposal to enumerate every
> hypothetical scenario and threat. But what good does that actually
> do? An in-depth discussion of this proposal is like having a debate
> on the Titanic some time after the ship has hit the iceberg about
> which wines would be the best match for our dinner choices.

Indeed. My goal with 2013-03 to reduce the amount of bureaucracy needed
to operate an LIR (and by extension, the RIR), and reduce the amount of
defunct policy text. To make it neat, relevant, and concise.

If I had tried to instead close every tiny loophole and theoretical
potential for abuse, however unlikely, the opposite would have been the
result. I might as well have asked a law firm to write it.

> The whole point is our policy-making machinery should be responsive
> and quick. So if 2013-03 later turns out to be unsatisfactory -- for
> some definition of unsatisfactory -- we change  or replace it in
> light of the information available at that time.

Yes.

And with regards to the particular concern over an LIR without
operational need attempting to corner the market by buying everything
there is, I'd like to ask the WG to keep in mind that there is a 24
month cooling off period for transfers which is retained by 2013-03:

«LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate
complete or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR
within 24 months of receiving the re-allocation.»

If it does turn out to be an attempt to corner the market after 2013-03
passes, we do have sufficient time to take corrective action (through
new policy) against the "cornerer" before he has a chance to cash out.
This in itself is a deterrence for anyone seriously considering an
attempt to corner the market. So is the possibility that IPv6 deployment
will increase during those 24 months and lower our LIRs' interest in,
and willingness to pay for, IPv4.

> BTW, common sense flies out the window whenever there is a
> (perceived) market scarcity. [Back in the 1970s there was panic
> buying of salt in the UK because of a word of mouth rumour about "the
> workers going on strike in the Siberian salt mines".] If there's the
> equivalent of panic buying of the last dregs of v4, so what? Once
> it's gone, it's gone and then we can all get on with what we should
> be doing: deploying IPv6. No amount of policy making today is going
> to prevent panic buying or other irrational behaviour by those who
> see (or think they see) empty IPv4 shelves in the shops.

If LIRs have operational need, they can engage in panic buying under the
current policy too. Presumably, those that participated in the panic
buying of salt you refer to were folks that actually needed and used salt...

I don't see why anyone who has no need for X would get panicky about a
scarcity of X, to be honest. Whether X equals IPv4 allocations, or salt.
But that's just me and my (not so) common sense, I guess. ;-)

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson