Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to
Regarding global policy on restricting RIR allocations, if you think one is needed, then there is a means to propose it.
Regarding land rush -- to some these types of global policy proposals represent a land rush "BY the RIRs" as opposed to the other one postulated of "TO the RIRs by the community". As someone recently pointed out to me the situation is akin to this:
Five vehicles: HumVee, Mercedes, small truck, tuk-tuk, motor scooter. One gas station with 46 gallons of gas. What do you do? Does it make a difference? Does the guy who delays switching to an alternative fuel gain an advantage or is he setting himself up for a hard time?
Ray
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann dot org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:33 PM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal -
> returning to mailing list for development
>
> Ray,
>
> On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Ray Plzak wrote:
> > There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it
> > can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they
> > will only accept a max of 2 /8s.
>
> Presumably what would preclude this is the fact that the RIRs have an
> informal agreement to request a maximum of 2 /8s. If this informal
> agreement is vulnerable to breaking down, perhaps it is advisable
> that this 'informal agreement' be made into a more formal global
> policy?
>
> > Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
> >
> > IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to
> > accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining
> > 2 /8s.
>
> Indeed. And if the RIR qualifies for 6 /8s, game over a bit earlier
> than expected.
>
> It would be unfortunate if the land rush anticipated by some within
> the ISP community was actually triggered by the RIRs.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>