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 thetwo proposals liesmaybe. i have a slightly different point of view. as pfs seems to beoff 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.pdf 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