Michael Dillon wrote:
We don't have consensus on this and the points raised by Sander Steffan in his email on the 13th of June, have not been answered yet. Here is Sander's email:
You know what, I'll indulge and repeat what I've been telling the past 2 RIPE meetings: Randy Bush: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 355.html - Transfering address space still assigned to end users Is not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could accommodate this if desired. - Inter-region transfers Explicitly not a part of this proposal. An additional proposal could accommodate this if desired. Per Heldal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 354.html - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR Fundamentally - what is more important? Keeping an accurate and usable database or setting limits to what people can and can not do without enforcement options? (One of the very few sticks the NCC currently has is denying people more allocations - if there's none more to be handed out, what do you expect to happen ?) I'm not averse to extra limitations in transferring space, what I DO disagree with is adding them to this current proposal. Time is not on our side. - Legal implications for RIPE NCC Anything we do, including doing nothing, has potential legal implications. - Viable plans for reclaiming space to continue with current policies for a significant time? The one viable plan I can come up with is to have ICANN buy back a lot of space using the money they got from opening the DNS root :) No transfer, reclaim or other policy can replace the global free pool as a sufficient resource for new allocations. - Possiblity of setting up LIRs for hoarding Is possible and viable today. Everyone can set up an LIR and get an initial allocation at the very least. RIPE NCC has very interesting presentations every meeting about the growth in membership. Jay Daley: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 366.html - Seller can choose who to sell to, not transparent Life isn't fair. Not knowing who buyer and seller are, or not knowing that a transaction has taken place is even less transparent. - Discrimination of LIRs in developing countries in the RIPE region What do you think would work and be less discriminatory? How about transferring address space to a needy LIR in a developing country as a (tax deductible !) act of charity? Not being 'legally' able to get more space discriminates against all who respect the rules. - Reclaim/reuse could be more efficient than transferring Given the fact that it requires more parties to actually do something, and they don't get a return for doing that, I don't see how that would work. - Faster depletion because of hoarding And nobody will hoard space if they're not entitled by RIR policy to transfer. Of course. - Legal implications for RIPE NCC See above. - Degradation of RIPE DB because of rival trading exchange databases ..is exactly what we're trying to prevent here. Rival databases only evolve if we set limits on what you can do with ours. If RIPE runs an accurate, usable and public database there's no business case for a rival database. Eric Schmidt: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 381.html - Breaks the current policy that unused address blocks return to RIPE NCC Which doesn't happen on any scale worth mentioning. Only when VERY significant effort is made by IANA/RIRs, space is returned. - Transfers open up more possibilities for abuse Not registering third party transfers open more possibilities for hidden abuse. ETNO: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00 293.html - A transfer system can not ensure a process that is open, transparent and equitable Given any distribution scheme for a scarce resource, some people will always be disappointed. I'm not aiming for a perfect solution because there isn't one. Protocol DESIGN requires perfection, protocol REDESIGN requires pragmatism. - Negative impact on routing tables Any increase in the efficiency in which we use the v4 address space will increase fragmentation and thus have an impact on the routing table. This is unrelated to transfer policies. - Keep demonstrated need criteria for address space by receiving LIR See above. But again, all of this is very interesting stuff but has little direct relation to the text of 2007-08 or the rationale behind it. Best, Remco "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." - Dante Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager. This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com