Re: [sig-policy] Leasing and needs based allocation
>
I don't think that's quite right.
If the "lessee" were coming to APNIC directly, then that would apply, and it would likely be an end-user assignment.
In the case Dean mentioned, it would seem to me to be an allocation to a registry (LIR, ISP, NIR, etc.). While NIRs do not provide connectivity, they are also a bit of a special case. Since I don't think Dean's organization is recognized as an NIR, I believe the LIR/ISP criteria would apply where the requirement for connectivity would come into play.
Yes, RFC 1814 (and by extension RFC 1466) allow an end-user organization to receive a direct allocation or assignment for their own use for non-connected networks, but it doesn't really provide for delegating space to be sub-delegated to non-related unconnected networks.
>> It seems to me that in the IPv4 near-exhaustion state that we are currently in, where market transfer is a reality, registration takes precedence over aggregation.
>
> I'd say registration takes precedence period.
>
> In my view, the RIRs may have a role in the market transfer world in providing a venue in which useful conventions to help ensure the Internet doesn't suffer routing system collapse, e.g., "transfers of prefixes longer than /<x> in IPv4 and /<y> in IPv6 are discouraged" can be established, but accurate registration is absolutely critical. Registries are _registries_ after all...
I don't see any reason to create a transfer market for IPv6. To me, the transfer market is strictly an artifact of IPv4 scarcity and should be viewed as a stop-gap measure to meet particular exigent circumstances, not a permanent evolution of the internet in general.
One of the key problems with the lease idea is that it would be a very convenient way to anonymize ones acquisition of multiple "final /22s" by getting them multiple lessors.
Owen