[address-policy-wg] Concerns on policy proposal 2005-08

On Jan 26, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

[...]

>> Are you trying to limit the commercial freedom of ISPs to offer a   
>> range
>> of products based around different sized networks?
>
> Well, I think it is inevitabale to revisit that issue and to reopen  
> that
> case. For 2 reasons:
>
> - address space was never to be "sold" to end users by "volume", it  
> was
>   always to be provided on an as needed basis. Address space is not an
>   ISPs "property" to be resold for profit. There are many other  
> (better)
>   ways to implement commercial freedom and product differentiation.
>
>   In the IPv4 world, the (marketing departments of) ISPs got away with
>   (mis)using the scarcity argument for wiring the size of address  
> blocks
>   into the packages they are offering.
>
>   My personal view on that: the users got used to it and the  
> community,
>   including the RIRs were/are tolerating this approach.

There are more points to consider. If you have a policy that requires  
an LIR to always assign a /48 on any product at the request of the  
end user you take away the ability of the LIR to plan their  
utilisation rate for any network segment or their allocation overall.  
We need to be careful not to set up a situation where an LIR has to  
achieve a particular assignment density to qualify for a new  
allocation but cannot do this because customers are always entitled  
to a /48 rather than a /56.

Just as importantly though, you create a policy without an  
enforceable appeal process or enforcement mechanism. That puts RIPE  
NCC staff in an untenable position where they have to implement a  
policy that is designed to see LIRs come back for address space very  
infrequently (see: 3.7) but does not give them the tools to enforce  
this right to always receive a /48.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison