Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
On Feb 14, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
I see the proposals for Global synchronization as very attractive and
hopefully progress can be made here.
I see similarities here with the other hot topic of the moment (no pun
intended), climate change. In both situations it would appear to make
little sense in not tackling the issue from a global perspective.
Indeed. And like climate change, there is the classical "tragedy of
the commons" problem of little to no incentive for individual actors
to do "the right thing" (indeed there are often obvious
disincentives) instead of getting all they can get so at least
they're OK when the crunch/melt/exhaustion does come.
To wit:
Would the existing member driven "bottom up" policy development
mechanisms still be used? To be honest, I can't see members who have
been paying their not insignificant RIR fees for many years
agreeing to
make it more difficult to get IPv4 address space for themselves.
In the olden days, we used to use the term "enlightened self-
interest" to justify doing stuff that might not make sense in a pure,
"what are my revenues next quarter" business perspective. It isn't
clear to me that this justification can fly anymore.
How would this affect members whose upstream carrier(s) don't provide
IPv6?
It would encourage those members to encourage their upstreams and/or
vote with their feet presumably.
I know that the idea of recovering unused address space was previously
met with an understandable "effort would not justify the reward" type
response, but that was when we thought we still had fifteen years
or so
before IPv4 exhaustion.
Now that the end is looking much closer than we all thought, maybe
attitudes have changed with the RIR communities?
I would imagine as the end gets nearer, the harder such a recover
effort will be.
Rgds,
-drc