2008-07 New Policy Proposal (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
PDP Number: 2008-07 Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-07.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 12 November 2008. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer
I'm not entirely sure this is a can of worms that I want to open (in fact, I'm sure I don't), but I guess it will be a question that someone has to ask sooner or later... Given that some (I do not know what figure that is) of the historical address space will have been allocated to customers of LIRs ("sites") rather than LIRs themselves, are they to be considered within this at all? I.e. "assignments" as well as "allocations." As it is currently worded, I guess not, is this because it is not worth it? Or too hard? Cheers, Rob
In principle I support this policy as it contributed to declassification of different address-blocks. Conditions should be the same for any allocation regardless of when it was made. Otoh, it is questionable how efficient this would be. It may be many ways around it that organisations can use to "hide" legacy allocations. It also falls in the same pit as every policy that tries to say anything about the use of previously assigned addresses (reclaiming/transfer etc). Unless the RIRs are given regulatory powers they can't efficiently control much beyond how they conduct allocations from the free pool. To change this we need something like a working rpki infrastructure and restrictions (or at least a strong recommendation) on registered AS'es not to announce or accept unsigned prefixes. This is a big conceptual change for the RIR as they get involved in routing decisions, but I can't see any other way to implement efficient regulation. It is widely accepted that there already is a black transfer-market, which proves that the threat of loosing whois and rdns is not enough big enough a stick. -- Per Heldal - http://heldal.eml.cc/
participants (3)
-
Filiz Yilmaz
-
Per Heldal
-
Rob Evans