[address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)

Hi Philip, all,

just let me state that I support the general idea and goal.
Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my
personal support for the proposal.

the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at
new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all*
additioal assignments in the first place?

There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate
legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space
from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by
the (related) LIR.

This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation?

Philip Smith wrote:
> Hi Larisa,
[...]
> What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply
> document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your
> customer has received pre-RIR space from you,

How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here...

> and they are announcing it
> all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using
> it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to
> assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other
> customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc.

Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce
all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-)
Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases,
but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument?

> The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not
> used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words,
> request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space.

I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it?

> Does this address your concerns?
> 
> philip
> --

Wilfried.

PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal,
    eventually?