Ownerless PI Revokation, was Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01...

> Such adjustments would almost certainly mean that operators 
> of private or not widely announced IP networks would incur 
> costs.  On the other hand in the absence of such adjustments 
> the operators of the Internet would incur costs because of 
> the unavailability of IPv4 addresses. 

Bottom line is that there are no operators of private networks
who are not also operators of the Internet. 

> I am sure such 
> trade-offs would be discussed vividly within BT. ;-)

And within Equant/Orange, and Deutsche Telekom and MCI/Verizon 
and Savvis and all the other operators who run both private
IP networks and public IP networks.

> Responsible policy making will take into account these basic 
> issues and adjust policies where necessary. 

That's why I raised the issue. Also, please don't assume that
I am trying to put BT's interests forward here. I'm not. I am
trying to put forward the interests of BT's customers who rely
on these globally unique registered IP addresses but who rarely
have a voice in RIPE or other RIRs.

> In this 
> particular case it is important to consider the likelihood of 
> un-coordinated use of IPv4 addresses which are allocated but 
> not widely used on the Internet and the associated 
> operational costs as well as the consequential loss of 
> credibility of the Internet registry system.

The likelihood is 100% and it has been going on for at least
10 years that I know about. Some people rely on globally 
unique registered IP addresses and others are happy if they
can use addresses that aren't being used by anybody else in
their region, or that are on a network that is separate in
some way. An RIR registration gives you the right to use certain
addresses, but it does not prohibit anybody else from using the
same addresses. Same thing goes for AS numbers such as AS 54271.

> Blindly insisting on the status-quo in the face of a changing 
> environment is never helpful and often counter-productive. 

I assure you that I have given this matter a lot of thought, 
and I continue to find IPv6 deployment superior to all the
proposals for a heroic last gasp of IPv4.

> So I encourage those that favour "reclamation" propose 
> concrete policies which take into account the issues which 
> Michael raises.

That is the core of my argument. Most people making policy change
proposals are thinking only of the public Internet and are only
trying to create something that helps ISPs. But IP addresses and
the IP technology suite are not just there for the benefit of 
ISPs. There is a broader community that relies on this network
technology and it is no solution at all if a policy change cuts
off some part of the larger community.

> One avenue to proceed could be to create multiple IPv4 
> address space registries ... boxes inside Pandora's ?

It is proven technology. A few years ago I set up a server
in the UK which used IP addresses that Afrinic has assigned
to a company in Morocco. Internet access worked fine and I
downloaded software upgrades and browsed Google and various
websites. NAT makes sinning profitable.

But, you always have to ask this question. If I am going to
spend some money to implement NAT, why not implement NAT-PT
and insure that the investment helps me into the brave new 
world of IPv6, instead of spending money that backs me into
a corner with IPv4 NAT?

--Michael Dillon