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