Re: [sig-policy] prop-050-v002: IPv4 address transfers
Hi Toshi,
Toshiyuki Hosaka said the following on 23/1/08 10:48:
Are you reffering to the case of company merger of acquisition, or
actual address trading?
The answer is "yes". Both. :-)
Do you think if this policy was implemented those who traded
unlegitimately would confess and register that transfer to DB?
If they had a choice between this and not being able to have their
prefix routed, I think they'd prefer this choice. At the moment, their
prefix is routed purely by good luck.
Similarly, will those who trade the address space really declare that
under this policy?
Yup. With a bigger routing system I suspect more and more ISPs will
start wanting to validate what they are carrying. Especially when it
costs them serious money to have infrastructure just to handle massive
BGP tables and the updates caused by these. Which I feel are coming
(maybe this is fear/uncertainty/doubt but going by history, I've reason
to worry.)
I do not know. If you (or proposal author) have any thought on the
incentive to register it to DB from source/recipient point of view,
I would appreciate it, in order to understand this proposal's
effectiveness.
Without this proposal, or preferably a much stronger one which
incorporates the entire APNIC family, I feel the Internet Routing system
in this region really will start getting into trouble... Registration of
resource is one of the key reasons for the success and stability of the
routing system so far. (Same as a car registration plate means that it
gives us a better idea who a particular car owner is. ;-))
philip
--