Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers
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.pdf
This 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