Scott, Thank you for your comments.You phrase in objective text what I would see as some interpretations and perspectives. While it is clear to me that you hold these views and perspectives, it is not clear to me that these are necessarily objective truths.
There is considerable uncertainty on the true capabilities of the routing system and its not entirely clear to me what limitations exist in the routing system as distinct from various impressions of what such limits may be. I would think it less than entirely appropriate to base policy on such perceptions of the nature of the inter-domain routing system and its capabilities, and even less appropriate to phrase current policy on perceptions of what such limits may have been some years ago.
What appears to me is that we are in a situation where:We are facing a transition to IPv6 that requires the operation of a dual stack environment where both future and existing deployments require access to both IPv4 and IPv6 address space.
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2007-08/dualstack.html We are facing a transition that is complex http://www.iepg.org/2007-07-ietf69/070722.v6-op-reality.pdfThis transition probably will take an extended period of time, and probably will take much longer than the anticipated time remaining in the unallocated Ipv4 address space pool
http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/So we can anticipate that new network deployments will take place after this pool exhaustion time, but they will still need IPv4 addresses in order to support dual stack operation as part of the overall IPv6 transition. But the RIRs will be unable to assist them, as their address pools are empty at that time. So, in the absence of alternatives, its likely that we will see various forms of IPv4 address transfer take place in order to meet these continuing demands for address space during this dual stack transition period.
Now, in terms of registry policy, can either allow such transfers to be recorded in the registry system or we can choose to deny access to the registry system. The registry system underpins the concepts of uniqueness, consistency, coherency, accuracy and integrity of the network's address plan. If the registry cannot fulfil this function then the utility of the entire network is severely undermined. Chaos in addresses is chaos in the network.
The extent to which other policies can be intertwined with this measure of transfer registration is uncertain. The higher the barrier of entry to the registry the higher the temptation to avoid registration altogether, raising the potential risks referred to above.
The transfer policy proposal being proposed in the APNIC policy forum is deliberately phrased as one that is simple and direct, and it tries to get to the heart of what needs to be undertaken in terms of roles of the registry in an environment where the associated address allocation function has finished through address pool exhaustion, yet the demand for uniqueness, consistency, coherency, accuracy and integrity in the registry function remains. In such an environment the registry needs to be in a position to accurately reflect the reality of address distribution. For that reason the policy proposal is quite limited in its scope, as it addresses quite directly the concept of including in the policy framework a capability to admit access to the registry in order to record address transfers.
regards, Geoff Huston