[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 16:22:07 CEST 2013
Hi Tore, On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote: > Hello McTim, > >> I don't think shifting to a market based allocation/assignment system >> is good stewardship. > > As I've mentioned in my reply to Sylvain Vallerot already, 2013-03 does > not cause the founding of an IPv4 market. I understand this, however that was not my point. Apologies if I was unclear. What I was trying to get across is that this proposal would go from a system of "pay your membership fees and show you actually need the resources" to just "pay". Needs based distribution has been a cornerstone of the RIR system for the last 2 decades or more. It has worked remarkably well, and I see no need to jettison it now just because there are fewer resources to distribute. In fact, I see a greater need for it now! I expect we will have to agree to disagree on this. <snip> > >> In addition there are multiple issues listed in the Impact Analysis >> that cause me great concern. The primary issue there is >> incompatibility with other regional transfer policies. > > 2013-03's proposed policy is no more or less compatible with other > regional transfer policies than our current policy is. While from a certain POV, this may be true, this proposal precludes the RIPE region from compatibility in future (unless one does something like Gert proposes downthread. I think this is not wise public policy making. You surely know that APNIC has already reversed their rejection of needs based allocation. I don't think it smart for us to do something that we will perhaps need to undo shortly. Now I am NOT anti-market in general, nor do I seek to rollback the current state of the v4 market. however, I think a true free-marketeer would be opposed to this policy because it precludes future inter-regional transfers. I don't understand why the brokers aren't opposing this, I guess they hate needs based allocation more than they want to make money on transfers down the road? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]