On 15/01/2009, at 12:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
< sig co-chair hat = off >
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
because the EC sets fees, not the address policy wg.
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference
between the
two proposals lies
maybe. i have a slightly different point of view. as pfs seems to be
off somewhere, how unusual, i am speaking for myself, not for both
authors.
to me, the critical differences are as follows:
o the community expressed concern about routing table size.
prop-067 addresses that directly by following current
allocation size policy and not allowing slicing stuff down to
/24s. and current allocation size policy is where such changes
should be addressed.
Given that current allocation size policy has little, if any,
relationship to what appears in the routing table (see http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2004-05-01-allocation-vs-announcement.p...
for a detailed analysis of this) it would disagree that such a
measure would "improve" the prospects of inflation of the BGP routing
table. A deeper analysis of the trends in the routing system as they
relate to the projections as they relate to the size of the routing
table and a consideration of the metrics of the underlying drivers of
the Internet's growth would show that this is not a significant
factor, in my personal opinion.
o the community asked that use of the space be justified.
prop-067 explicitly calls that out.
As author of the proposal, I carefully followed the comments in the
presentations to prop-50 in the Policy SIG meetings and the discussion
on the mailing list and I recollect no specific comment that reflects
this concern as a barrier to achieving consensus. I do not agree that
this was an expressed concern of the community, but if you can provide
specific references, in the APNIC Policy SIG mailing list or in the
APNIC Policy SIG meeting archives, that would help.
In addition,as this was a topic that evidently generated some level of
discussion in the ARIN and RIPE policy fora in recent months, I have
written an extended justification why this form of RIR-imposed
constraint of "justification" was entirely inappropriate and
ineffectual in terms of outcomes in terms of coherence and integrity
of the address registry function. This extended commentary is at http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2008-11/transfers.html
for those folk who are interested in this aspect of application of
constraints in a trading environment.
o folk kept asking about inter-region transfer. prop-067 allows
it and specifically makes sure it follows apnic and the other
rir's policies.
I am personally of the view that that this should not be bundled up
into a single proposal, and should be a topic of a distinct
consideration by the SIG, so I have submitted a policy that
specifically relates to other RIRs and to the NIRs in the APNIC
region, for consideration at the forthcoming Policy SIG meeting. I
personally believe that the consideration for NIRs should be
explicitly encompassed in such a framework, and have done so in this
policy proposal.
Geoff Huston