[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

> Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate 
> and usable database

Most of the innacuracy in the database is due to poor
processes in the LIRs and laziness. Not because black
market transfers are filling it up.

> or setting limits to what people can and 
> can not do without enforcement options? (One of the very few 
> sticks the NCC currently has is denying people more 
> allocations - if there's none more to be handed out, what do 
> you expect to happen ?)

When the stick is gone, it is gone. Transfer policies will
not change this.

> I'm not averse to extra limitations 
> in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them 
> to this current proposal. Time is not on our side.

Neither is science. When the address space is all used up there
will be no more free addresses. Transfer policies will not magically
create free addresses to be transferred.

In your long list of points that you answered you forgot the
most important one. IPv6 has lots of free addresses and it
is increasingly better supported by vendors. Organizations
who are concerned about an address shortage should not put
their hope in transfer policies but should instead deploy
IPv6 as soon as possible, and put tremendous pressure on
vendors to fix the remaining issues.

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that ETNO members
are opposed to the transfer policy because they've already
figured out that it makes more sense to invest in IPv6. But
since the value of the network arises from everyone being
connected, they want everyone to join the IPv6 party sooner
rather than later.

--Michael Dillon