Last Resort Registries

>   >    - this would seem to imply that RFC1597 is now *compulsory* for privat
>   >      internets 
> 
> No, see my answer to Simon.

(I actually meant that as a question, but ...)

So dropping the last resort registries does little or nothing to reduce 
non-provider addresses, since organisations can still acquire address space 
from one provider and connectivity from another. The allocation of addresses
that may not be aggregateable continues, only now by different registries.
I'm not sure I see how relocating the registry activities helps global routing.

> I mentioned the main problems im my proposal.

Re-reading your proposal there appears to be three lines of discussion,
which in order of importance are:

  1/ last-resort registries allocate non-aggregateable address space
     (which in the future may be useless as no one will route it).

  2/ last-resort registries are less necessary than was the case because
     of the proliferation of provider registries

  3/ last-resort registries do not currently fit into the NCC charging 
     model.

and a fourth point, from one of your replies to Simon:

  4/ "end-users will be warned better about what they are getting" if
     they obtain their addresses from provider registries, rather than
     last resort registries

(Have I missed anything ?)

Going through these points, I don't believe dropping last-resort registries
solves #1, as non-aggregateable address will still be allocated albeit by
different registries. #2 is true, but not necessarily a reason to drop the
LR registries: less demand for them is not the same as no demand. A similar
argument can be advanced against #3 - the fact that the charging model may
need to be modified to accommodate the LR registries is not by itself 
sufficient reason to drop the registries.

I'm not at all convinced by #4. Consider the following scenario: a provider
registry allocates a block of addresses to a private internet, that claims
it has no intention of connecting to the global Internet. The provider
registry levies a charge for this (they win). 18 months later the private
internet then decides it does wish to connect to the global Internet. However
now they find that the only provider prepared to carry their addresses is
the one that allocated them in the first place. Hence unless they are
prepared to renumber they are locked into the first provider (thus the
provider wins again). The same would have been true had they acquired the
addresses from a last-resort registry, however unlike the last-resort
registries it is in the provider's interest *NOT* to tell the customer about
the possible restrictions in the use of the addresses.

I'm happy to see the last-resort registries disappear (we'd be *extremely*
happy to get shot of the load from our LR registry :-) ) if it is brings
significant benefit to the community. However on the basis of the arguments
I've seen here, I personally think that the benefit is not yet proven.

Kevin Hoadley, JIPS NOSC.