Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits whentransferringaddress
It was not my intention to point my questions at any particular person.
What would be the effect of a policy to refuse to record a transfer
of which both the relinquishing and acquiring party agree?
It can prevent that remaining IPv4 address space in IANA will be
consumed very rapidly.
It is not clear to me that refusing to record a transfer changes the
rate of allocation from the free pool. It might be useful to write
out explicitly the chain of implication from the refusal to the effect
on allocation. Then we could compare that to the potential harm of
trying to establish a system of regulation on transfers.
And it is a intention of prop-072, isn't it?.
I don't think so. My reading of prop-72 is that it constrains
allocations from the RIR's free pool rather than attempting to
regulate the transfers. Quote from the proposal:
This policy proposal seeks to supplement prop-050, "IPv4 address
transfers", by not permitting organisations who have transferred IPv4
address from obtaining more address space from APNIC for a period of 24
months after the transfer.
Would it be good for the Internet as a whole to have
this information not recorded?
Or do you want some organization other than the RIR for
one of the parties to provide this kind of record?
I'm afraid that you misunderstood my position.
I'm supporting prop-050, so I want to avoid such situation, of course.
I am sorry if my questions appeared specific to your position.
It seems to me that the most likely result of refusal of RIRs to
register transfers is not that transfers will not happen, but that
someone else will be found to register them if registration of who is
authorized to use an address block is necessary.
Policies that constrain what the RIR allocates from its pool seem to
risk fewer unintended consequences than attempting to influence the
behavior of other parties.
So, your point is "Even if we will restrict transfer of newly
allocated address space,
somebody will transfer it immediately in underground. In such case,
information of such address
space is not recorded correctly on registry." Is it correct
understanding?
If I understand your description, yes. Evidence that transfers have
already taken place prior to transfer policy - not to mention prior to
exhaustion of the free pool(s) - has been shown here and in other
RIR's policy discussions.
More than just observing this fact, my goal is to remind people that
the behavior we can control with these policies is that of the RIR,
not that of other parties. Policies that attempt to control others
are likely to have different - and worse - effects than intended.
John