2009-01 New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries)
PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries 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/2009-01.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 19 March 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
This policy is intended to be a global policy and thus has been submitted in each region. I wrote up my thoughts and concerns and posted to them to the ARIN mailing list - but they are relevant to all regions so I thought I would submit them here to help start a conversation about this policy. I don't really have an opinion as to whether the concept is good/worthwhile yet - but I have a lot of concerns about how this would work, what the repercussions could be and whether it is worth it. As written, I'm currently opposed to this policy. Here's a run down of my questions/concerns. It is not clear whether it is mandatory that RIR's proactively recover space, but it sounds as though it is mandatory that recovered space be turned over to IANA. Is this a conflict? Does this create a dis-incentive to recover space? If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the quarterly interval and return it to IANA? IMO, they shouldn't be forced to return it if they have requests within their region that could be met by reassigning the recovered space. Does this have the potential to break/change rDNS delegations? Geo-location stuff? RPKI? What effect would this have on the RIR's db's? How much work would it be on staff and the db's to break up their aggregates in order to return something? What does this do to aggregation? How will preferences to aggregation be made? It sounds like first come, first serve.. gets the most aggregated prefixes. It sounds as though you can't return space after phase1, is this correct? Intentional? Whatever space starts in the queue by definition could be depleted in 1 year, if each RIR makes a request each 6 months. Is it worth it to extend the "free pool" for one year? Especially if there is no incentive/proactive process to recover space? If RIR's can reassign returned space until the quarterly interval, there may be little if anything to return to IANA. I think this policy doesn't really do anything to extend the free pool or soften the blow of depletion. I imagine there would be the least amount of address space in the queue the first year when it is most needed. If a mechanism to return space after phase 1 existed - the amount of space to delegate could go up - but probably wouldn't for several years, until IPv6 adoption took hold. --Heather On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Filiz Yilmaz <filiz@ripe.net> wrote:
PDP Number: 2009-01 Global Policy for the Allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
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/2009-01.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 19 March 2009.
Regards
Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Hi Heather, A good set of questions but I'll just comment on your first one. On 19/02/2009 1:26, "heather skanks" <heather.skanks@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
It is not clear whether it is mandatory that RIR's proactively recover space, but it sounds as though it is mandatory that recovered space be turned over to IANA. Is this a conflict? Does this create a dis-incentive to recover space?
If address space is returned to an RIR, and they have an immediate need for that space, can they assign it? or *must* they wait for the quarterly interval and return it to IANA? IMO, they shouldn't be forced to return it if they have requests within their region that could be met by reassigning the recovered space.
I think that you are really asking whether the proposers intend to create a redistributive system. I don't know whether that's the case and the rationale section of the proposal is very brief and doesn't really give any hints. However, the summary section includes the statement "The RIRs may, according to their individual policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space." I don't know if "may" should be defined in its BCP 14 sense but I don't think it would normally be taken to mean that it is a requirement. Regards, Leo Vegoda
feliz, can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two? randy
Hi Randy - I think the simple two-sentence summary would be something like this: The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating IPv4 will become unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new policy that keeps the structure between IANA and RIRs in place and gives IANA something useful to do. That said, I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure if this is what we're looking for. Best, Remco On 2/19/09 10:39 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
feliz,
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two?
randy
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Remco, Surely that can't be the intention, or the policy would say that? It seems to revolve around the RIRs "recovering" IPv4 address space, and then returning that to IANA. But according to the IANA IPv4 page, every RIR has received at least one new /8 within the last 2 years. Since IPv4 usage is increasing in each region, I'm not sure when these IPv4 addresses are expected to appear. -- Shane On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 23:17 +0100, R.S. van Mook wrote:
Hi Randy -
I think the simple two-sentence summary would be something like this:
The current policy between IANA and the RIRs for allocating IPv4 will become unusable once IANA runs out. We need a new policy that keeps the structure between IANA and RIRs in place and gives IANA something useful to do.
That said, I sympathize with the proposal but I'm not sure if this is what we're looking for.
Best,
Remco
On 2/19/09 10:39 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote:
feliz,
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two?
randy
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Randy Bush wrote:
feliz,
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two?
randy
In a nutshell... When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs Nigel
On 20/02/2009 13:42, Nigel Titley wrote:
When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
Nigel, Can I ask what the purpose of the policy is? Each RIR is going to have sufficient local demand for locally reclaimed ipv4 address blocks that it seems unlikely to me that reassigning all these reclaimed addresses back to IANA is going to have any real effect on availability for end-users. This is particularly the case if there is going to be an address trading market where allocations have a quantifiable monetary value. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 20/02/2009 13:42, Nigel Titley wrote:
When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
Nigel,
Can I ask what the purpose of the policy is? Each RIR is going to have sufficient local demand for locally reclaimed ipv4 address blocks that it seems unlikely to me that reassigning all these reclaimed addresses back to IANA is going to have any real effect on availability for end-users. This is particularly the case if there is going to be an address trading market where allocations have a quantifiable monetary value. 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.
Nigel
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.
so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? randy
nigel:
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. randy: so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need?
would be nice to get an answer to this one. i guess layer nine folk belive in fantasies such as 'weekends.' i bet they even believe in 'vacations.' randy
Randy Bush wrote:
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.
so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need?
We suspect so. Nigel
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. so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? We suspect so.
the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space. randy
Randy Bush wrote:
the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space.
And I shall invest in runways for pigs. Nigel
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:43:36PM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space.
And I shall invest in runways for pigs.
Nigel
short runways - these pigs have great thrust --bill
Randy and all, Wild fantasy is right! Not going to happen... Randy Bush wrote:
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. so, may i infer an unstated assumption that the distribution of 'recoverable' space is highly skewed in relation to expected need? We suspect so.
the gossip here at apnic is that some folk are entertainig the wild fantasy that the us military will return a lot of ipv4 space.
randy
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
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. I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible under this policy before voicing a formal opinion. Kind regards, Andy Davidson
Andy and all, I share your concern. Further it is likely that IPv4 address hording by the resource rich to black market those addresses to the resource starved will and from rumor I have heard, is already happening. But after years to nearly a decade of mis managment of IP address allocation via skewed and overly expensive fees, it's no wonder to me. 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.
I would want to see an exhaustive list of scenarios that are possible under this policy before voicing a formal opinion.
Kind regards, Andy Davidson
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
On 22 feb 2009, at 02:03, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Andy and all,
I share your concern. Further it is likely that IPv4 address hording by the resource rich to black market those addresses to the resource starved will and from rumor I have heard, is already happening. But after years to nearly a decade of mis managment of IP address allocation via skewed and overly expensive fees, it's no wonder to me.
With the risk of going sligthly off-topic here since address-policy is not about fees, do you care to eloborate on that last comment ? The RIPE general meeting is where the fees are dicussed and set and I can't find your name on the attendees lists for the last few meetings. If you would have paid some attention you would have noticed that the fees since 2005 only went down or have been kept the same. And if you think this is "overly expensive" wait until we ran out and some market wether regulated/grey/black takes shape. Groet, MarcoH
Jeffrey, On 22/02/2009 01:03, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated? That's three things: 1. web site? 2. who are your stakeholders? 3. where is INEGroup LLA formally registered? thanks Jeffrey, Nick
On 23/02/2009 12:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated?
Jeffrey, I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to answer these three simple questions. A few moments of effort on your part would set to rest these things. Indeed, many similar queries have been raised by people over the past 12-odd years on a variety of mailing lists, concerning your many varied, and at times rather curious claims. A good summary of these can be found in the Jeffrey Williams FAQ, which was written some ten years ago. Obviously, I'm not endorsing the opinions expressed in these postings: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html Further concerns are expressed in other emails to the same forum, specifically concerning claims you made to have a law degree from SMU Law School in Dallas: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html ... and another interesting incident, concerning a surprisingly rapid change of organisation from "Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC." to "Information Network Eng. Group.", following legal threats from IEG: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html ... and claims to be living in "5 East Kirkwood Blvd., Grapevine, TX 75208", demonstrable using Google Maps to be a non-existent postal address, although near to Idlewild Ct, Southlake, TX. ... and a claim to hosting a large conference of 25k people in Dallas in 1999 is noted here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/i...
with followup:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990823224445/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebun...
And further general analysis on:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/i...
I hope I'm right in assuming that the "Jeff Williams" of this era, email address jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com, and you are one and the same person. Please feel free to correct me on this issue if I'm wrong. Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium. Nick
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:10:57PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium.
Why did you, then? How is any of this germane to the purpose of ap-wg?
Nick
Sascha
Nick and all, I as a rule don't respond to spacious claims posed as questions, as I felt your earlier posts suggested to me. Further, and with all due candor, I stand by everything I say, write or otherwise utter even if others may or may not necessarily agree. I fully recognize that some of the ideas I have had, implemented with assistance at times from my staff or other professionals of various disciplines have been, and perhaps still are viewed as controversial. That assertion however in no way will EVER dissuade me, or my organization from whatever endeavors we or I choose to pursue. I am sorry to a degree, but only to a degree, that you or anyone else is for whatever reason offended, disbelieving, or disgruntled with my or our organization(s) endeavors, such is life as it were... I am still and long standing supporter of the IETF and it's endeavors a few or which I participate to the degree I can or have time to and can offer something of use or value too. This however in no way means that I do now, have in the past, or will in the future agree with the majority or minority on anything as I am a free thinker and intend to remain such all the remaining years of my life. If anyone doesn't like such I can only say: Too Bad! >:) You have a good day/evening Nick. >:) Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 23/02/2009 12:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I'm fascinated to know more about INEGroup LLA. Perhaps you could point me to a web site explaining your policies, procedures and all that; and also, on what basis you claim to speak for these 284,000 members / stakeholders (i.e. election / appointment / etc). Also, could you also provide a pointer to where INEGroup LLA is registered / incorporated?
Jeffrey,
I'm sorry you haven't taken the time to answer these three simple questions. A few moments of effort on your part would set to rest these things. Indeed, many similar queries have been raised by people over the past 12-odd years on a variety of mailing lists, concerning your many varied, and at times rather curious claims.
A good summary of these can be found in the Jeffrey Williams FAQ, which was written some ten years ago. Obviously, I'm not endorsing the opinions expressed in these postings:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/08015.html
Further concerns are expressed in other emails to the same forum, specifically concerning claims you made to have a law degree from SMU Law School in Dallas:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05398.html
... and another interesting incident, concerning a surprisingly rapid change of organisation from "Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC." to "Information Network Eng. Group.", following legal threats from IEG:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/05347.html
... and claims to be living in "5 East Kirkwood Blvd., Grapevine, TX 75208", demonstrable using Google Maps to be a non-existent postal address, although near to Idlewild Ct, Southlake, TX.
... and a claim to hosting a large conference of 25k people in Dallas in 1999 is noted here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/i...
with followup:
http://web.archive.org/web/19990823224445/http://robin.fcn.net/mr99ronydebun...
And further general analysis on:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000707224140/http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/i...
I hope I'm right in assuming that the "Jeff Williams" of this era, email address jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com, and you are one and the same person. Please feel free to correct me on this issue if I'm wrong.
Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium.
Nick
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Hi Nick, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:10:57PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Sincere apologies to the AP-WG mailing list for rehashing this tedium.
I think we can rest this case now. Readers of this list should now be able to make their minds about Jeff Williams, and whether or not to take his comments seriously. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
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
On 25/02/2009 2:08, "Nigel Titley" <nigel@titley.com> wrote: [...]
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.
It would be nice to add something along these lines to the "rationale" section of the proposal. Regards, Leo
Nigel, On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:08 AM, Nigel Titley wrote:
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.
My understanding of consumption patterns is that the RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC regions will consume their free pools much more quickly than LACNIC and AfriNIC. Indeed, some projections I've seen have AfriNIC having large blocks of unused address space long past the time when the unallocated pools in the other regions are exhausted. In such a situation, would it be "equitable" for (say) a non-profit, public benefit supplier of Internet connectivity to orphans based in Geneva to be unable to obtain IPv4 address space whereas DeBeers or Shell Nigeria would be able to obtain as much address space as they like? I suspect "equitable" is in the eye of the beholder and it will be important to be very, very explicit as to what particular goals the policy is attempting to reach "equitably". Regards, -drc
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two? When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need more coffee (05:50 here)? randy
Could someone explain what 'equitably' means in this context? Thanks, -drc On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two? When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need more coffee (05:50 here)?
randy
David and all, I have the same question, FWIW... David Conrad wrote:
Could someone explain what 'equitably' means in this context?
Thanks, -drc
On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
can someone tell us what the actual intent of this policy is? like in a simple sentence or two? When the IPv4 address space runs out, anything that we get back gets equitably shared amongst the RIRs
perhaps this could have been more obvious in the draft, or do i need more coffee (05:50 here)?
randy
Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
participants (15)
-
Andy Davidson -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
David Conrad -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Gert Doering -
heather skanks -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
Leo Vegoda -
lists-ripe＠c4inet.net -
Marco Hogewoning -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
R.S. van Mook -
Randy Bush -
Shane Kerr