Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
Certainly it is a good point, but I am not
necessarily claiming for a global or a
coordinated policy (maybe yes), but for a global
"and" coordinated strategy for dealing with a global problem.
At 09:57 p.m. 11/02/2008, Ray Plzak wrote:
Any discussion of a globally coordinated policy
must include an agreement between the RIRs that
all will adhere to the policy as globally
coordinated and that regional changes cannot and
will not be accepted or this policy will unravel
like the globally coordinated IPv6 policy of
2002. The ink was not dry on that policy before
the first RIR modified it thus negating the
efforts of a great number of individuals over a great many months.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Raul Echeberria
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 6:32 PM
> To: ppml at arin dot net; sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy
> One observation.
> Accepting transfers only within the region is a
> way to keep the IP addresses within the regions
> in which they were originally allocated.
> I don't know if it is good or not, but a fact.
> If the transfer of legacy space is also admited,
> it has a great impact in other regions, since
> most of the unused space belonging to the legacy
> blocks, will feed regional markets in the
> developed countries. This is the promotion of
> regional markets instead of global markets.
> My opinion is that the regional approach to a
> global poblem that is the IPv4 deployment is not the right approach.
> At 06:51 p.m. 11/02/2008, Geoff Huston wrote:
> >Raul Echeberria wrote:
> > > Could the author of the proposal explain what is
> > > the justification for requiring that the
> > > transferee should also belong to ARIN's region?
> > > It is only a question and it doesn't imply any
> > > specific opinion about the topic.
> > >
> > > Raúl
> > >
> >Raul has not asked this more generally, but as
> >the proposer of a similar address transfer
> >policy in APNIC that also has a similar
> >restriction (APNIC members only) I should add a
> >note about why this restriction is present in
> >the APNIC transfer policy proposal.
> >In the APNIC case its about the regional address
> >policy group being able to define policy for
> >themselves. In this case the policy proposal has
> >not been submitted as a coordinated policy
> >across the RIRs nor as a proposed global polic.
> >It was submitted to the APNIC policy development
> >process as a proposed APNIC policy that would apply to APNIC members.
> >That said, I now notice that there are similar
> >proposals in both the ARIN and RIPE regions, so
> >it may be possible during the course of the
> >consideration of these proposals to assess to
> >what extent such transfer mechanisms could be
> >extended to encompass transfers across RIRs, as
> >Scott Leibrand has already indicated in his response to Raul.
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 /
> >Virus Database: 269.20.2/1271 - Release Date: 11/02/2008 08:16 a.m.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on
resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.2/1273
- Release Date: 12/02/2008 09:31 a.m.