Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of IANAstewardship
Please see embedded comments below (towards the end).
Thanks and best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces@apnic.net [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@apnic.net]On
> Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: vendredi, 12. septembre 2014 07:22
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: ianaxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] Key elements of the transition of
> IANAstewardship
>
>
> Avri,
>
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
> > What would it take for Richard and Friends to acquire control over some
> > IP address space; Either v4 (maybe they get it from the legacies) or v6
> > (maybe they just ask for an unassigned block).
>
> What do you mean by ‘acquire control’?
>
> Richard and Friends can configure their routers to announce any
> address space they like (v4 or v6). As we’ve seen on far too
> many occasions, there are numerous ISPs who will be happy to
> listen and propagate those routes. The end result being traffic
> may get routed to Richard and Friends, depending on a huge number
> of variables (RPKI could help with this particular form of
> ‘acquisition', if it is ever deployed).
>
> For the ISPs that do actually validate their customers actually
> “own” the prefixes they show up with, there are a few options:
>
> a) go through regular channels, pay your fees, and convince the
> RIRs that they actually need those addresses (more or less, these
> days it depends on which RIR you go to and what address space
> you’re trying to get);
> b) purchase the address space on the ’transfer list’ (or whatever
> politically correct allusion you wish to make that refers to the
> open market);
> c) steal the address space by getting the registration data
> updated somehow; or
> d) convince ISPs that you are the appropriate owner, perhaps by
> liberal application of filthy lucre.
>
> (a fifth alternative that I suspect will occur eventually if RIRs
> continue to try to use their registration database as a policy
> enforcement tool is for an alternative registration database to
> be established that merely records the current owner of address
> space regardless of policy constraints, but that’s a rant for a
> different time/venue).
>
> > Would they be allowed to
> > allocate the v4 (perhaps one way for MENA and other v4 deprived
> > communities to get it)?
>
> If Richard and Friends can justify the address space, sure.
> However, there is this minor detail of IPv4 scarcity these days.
> With respect to MENA (Middle East/North Africa?), AfriNIC has
> more IPv4 address space remaining than all the other RIRs
> (combined? Haven’t checked). The ISPs serving “deprived”
> communities in MENA can obtain address space in the traditional way.
>
> > Would they be allocated by IANA a block of v6?
>
> If they can justify a need for it, sure.
>
> > And what if people around the world, perhaps members of global
> > organizations or just a bottom-up groundswell of contrarians, applauded
> > and said yes, we want IP allocations from Richard and Friends? Would
> > that be allowed? Who needs to allow it? IANA? How do they decide? The
> > RIRs? why? Because they were there first?
>
> As I’ve tried to explain to Richard, the assumption of a need to
> be “allowed” by IANA or the RIRs is a top-down mindset and
> Internet numbers don’t work that way.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "allowed". Of course there is no
legal restriction (at least that I know of) on doing what you outline above.
But you clearly outline above how difficult it would be actually to do it.
For example, you correctly note that "Richard and Friends" (which, by the
way, would not include me, because I would not undertake such an activity)
would have to justify a need for an IPv6 block. That might be difficult to
do, so, in practice "Richard and Friends" might not be allowed, under
existing IP address allocation policies, to do what they had in mind.
Note that I'm not saying that they should be allowed: the current policies
are no doubt sensible.
>IP addresses are just
> numbers. There is nothing special about the numbers allocated by
> the RIR system+ICANN other than the fact that they are allocated
> by the RIR system+ICANN.
Correct. But that the fact that they are allocated by the RIRs creates
value: they are far more likely to be used and implemented that numbers
allocated by, say, "Richard and Friends".
>The only thing stopping anyone from
> reusing any of the numbers allocated by the RIR system+ICANN is
> the fact that the world’s ISPs tend to want the Internet to work
> and as a result, prefer unique address assignments. In that
> sense, it is the ISPs that would “allow” the use of those addresses.
Correct.
>
> Get enough folks together (or pay enough money) to convince the
> ISPs of the world to believe in you (and look at your
> registration database) and voila, via the magic of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect you’ve just become
> a registry and you can allocate to your heart’s content.
Yes, the key barriers being "get enough folks together" or "pay enough
money". I presume that people on this list well understand the concepts of
network effects (in the economic sense) and economies of scale, which
explain why those barriers can be difficult to surmount in practice.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
>