[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09

Raul,

On May 30, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
> You didn't answer my question.

Apologies, I misunderstood.

> My point is that not having a policy of this kind would be very  
> problematic at the time of allocating the last part of the pool. It  
> is not necessarily a question of fairness but certainty in how much  
> space the RIR will have since a certain moment to the end of IPv4  
> space.

I was mostly commenting on assertions on Tony's policy (2007-9, in  
RIPEland), not on 2008-3.

With respect to 2008-3, I understand the sympathize with the desire to  
ensure that RIRs don't get surprised at the end of the free pool.  As  
I've stated in the past, I don't have a problem with the policy,  
particularly with N=1 as it is now.

However, with that said, I still believe the statement:

"Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies  
will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the  
requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's  
policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs  
from other regions submitting such requests."

ignores the likely desperation people will face when we reach IPv4  
runout, particularly given the mechanisms the RIRs have used in the  
past to encourage policy conformance (i.e., potentially refusing to  
allocate additional address space if policies aren't conformed to)  
would no longer be applicable.

Regards,
-drc