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

Hello Per,

> The draft §5.5 says: "Demonstration of need for the address space by the
> receiving LIR to the RIPE NCC is not required during transfers."
...
> Personally I'd prefer the present policies to continue, where a block
> must be returned to RIPE before the NCC re-allocates according to normal
> rules. That does not encourage the creation of a market, but has anyone
> yet been able to precent viable plans for a scheme able to reclaim
> enough addresses to support current network growth for any significant
> time past depletion of the free pool?  

These are good questions. My feeling is that recent lessons, particularly those 
we heard at RIPE 55, suggest that any alternatives to 2007-08 are more 
troublesome than they appear, and probably more trouble than they are worth.

Regarding reclamation, I'd certainly support any reclamation that would service 
the run rate. Leo's experience with reclaiming 14/8, however, suggests to me 
that even a concerted effort at the low-hanging fruit would not service a 
fraction of the current run rate.

The main consequence of accepting 2007-08, imho, will be to create a system of 
transfers that will occur where we can see it, and so allow us to continue to 
enforce policy and maintain a meaningful WHOIS database. Crucial to that 
objective is that the result must be better for the user than black-market or 
grey-market alternatives. (The canonical example here is iTunes music store vs. 
p2p filesharing.)

Since we rely on consensus to implement our policies, not just as a show of 
hands in a room but implemented in BGP filters on live routers, the method of 
transfers allowed by 2007-08 must pass that test. If it does not, ISPs 
operating as "consenting adults" may withdraw consent by agreeing their own 
rules between themselves, without reference to RIPE policies. If this becomes a 
widespread practice, we will have some difficulty maintaining policy 
enforcement and meaningful WHOIS in the future.

I would not accept that we should legislate for a free for all for fear of 
getting a free for all, but we must choose our restrictions carefully so as to 
keep the burden on the user to the minimum. In that context, I would be wary of 
adding any further restrictions to 2007-08, and I support the proposal as it 
stands.

Best regards,
Dave

-- 
Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +353-1-660 9040  fax: +353-1-660 3666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/        H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9