[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Policy Proposal (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)

Hi,


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
> * Sylvain Vallerot
>
>> The public ressource is not "gone" : it was allocated or assigned, but
>> it's still there.
>
> The key word here is *public*. The *public* resource is gone.

not entirely, or have I missed that announcement?.


>
> The numbers still exist in *private* pools at the LIR level and below,
> but the *public* pools (i.e., IANA and RIPE NCC) are empty.

"empty" in the sense that the red fuel low indicator light on my
dashboard has gone on, but my vehicle still runs?

I think this proposal actually lengthens the lifetime of v4, in that
if an LIR makes a significant investment in v4 resources, they will be
more likely to seek the longest ROI possible, thus delaying their v6
adoption.

I do understand the arguments in favor, I just don't find them
compelling.  What is most striking to me is that we had a finite but
significant supply of resources in the past, and we doled them out
according to operational need.  That made sense to me.  Eliminate the
operational needs requirement during a rationing phase just doesn't
make sense to me.

I also think that if adopted, this proposal would preclude an
inter-RIR transfer market in that the "needs test" is required in the
other regions, and that would mean that the RIPE region policies would
not be "compatible" as called for in the other regions transfer
policies.

In other words, does 2013-03 preclude 2012-02 (if adopted) from being effective?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel