Andy Davidson wrote:
On 20 Feb 2009, at 16:17, Nigel Titley wrote:
Personally I agree with you that people are likely to hang on to what Ipv4 space they have until things have moved on so far that this space is useless. However, what space is recovered is probably best shared according to need, rather than just staying with the RIR where it was originally allocated. This principle is what this global policy is about.
Hi, Nigel
Thank you for the clarification.
I'm a bit worried that this policy as it stands could lead to address resources flowing from resource starved regions, to regions who are today already resource rich. I can't work out if it's more equitable to let that happen, or more equitable for us to try to encourage address poor regions to retain their resources to cater for internet growth in these regions.
The feeling was, amongst the drafting group, that there is vastly more recoverable address space in the early "resource rich" adopters of IP than the later ones. This policy is intended to redress that balance, ie to ensure that when address space is recovered in the RIPE, ARIN and APNIC regions (to take an example) it can flow into the LACNIC and AFRINIC regions, who having less history have less address space that can be recovered. Hence the "equitable" description earlier.
I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible under this policy before voicing a formal opinion.
Anyone is welcome to contribute such scenarios. The drafting group does not lay claim to omniscience. Nigel