On Tuesday, September 24, 2013, Randy Bush wrote:
> IPv4 will, undoubtedly, eventually run out.

ipv4 will be around after everyone on this list today is retired.

Very good point. 
I can hate it - but I would not bet much on you beeing wrong - even if I am going to retire a few years after you.  
(...)


we would like it if the registries acted as registries, i.e. recorded
accurately who controls/owns what address space.  we thought that was
their primary responsibility

Fully agree.  


the registry system has a choice.  it can make it difficult for users
to register, transfer, sauté, whatever address space, in which case
they have some chance at a reasonable level of accuracy in their
registries, or they can make it difficult.  in the latter case, they
will become vestigial organs whose function we will soon not even be
able to remember.  and we sure as heck won't be sending money to them.

the choice is ours.  today, dealing with the registries' petty rules
and bureaucracy is a major pita.  this policy proposal tries to make
it easier.

Since the start of my first encounter with the RIR Ripe 20 years ago we have gradualy
reduced the documentation to demonstrate the need for addressess (have had to send receipts for equipment and such a couple times - we do not do that anymore)  - thus there is more trust in the LIRs self assesment of need than it used to be. 

I think the important shift now  is that this proposal actualy transfers the responsibility for conservation fully to the LIR - much in the same way as the responsibility for aggregation has been with the LIR for years. 

(in the end of 80s the central registry even tried to look after aggregation by delivering a then class B - now /16 instead of 4 class C /24)

I would argue that we have a strong tradition to move in the direction of deregulation ad more trust in the LIR in this region 


it really makes small difference what we choose.  the internet will
route around whatever impediments we place.  it's a big river now.

Right. 
It is probably fairly easy to transfer IP Addressess from company A to B in most regions trough other means :

company -A forms subcidiary A-registry ltd. A-registry Ltd is sold to B and then merged with B. 

Just is slightly more expensive and keeps the lawyers busy.  Actualy - in my country I think I could to the legal work myself - its not that complicated. 

(and i have a real life example for a /8 that has made its way from Norway in the RIPE region to USA in arin Arin region this way -  in a slightly more complicated manner with a few more steps).  

A side effect of allowing addresses to be more or less freely tranfered is that it could actualy bring more addresses to the market - when early adopers figure out that they can run their entire corporate/governmet network on private addresses between a NAT keeping only their servers offering public services on public addresses - the same way as most companies has had to do for years. 

As soon as the market price is higher than the cost to redesign and renumber this will start to happen. 

We should probably take this further and split the policy in 3:

- a clear registration policy that applies to everybody and requires addresses to be registered
- a transfer policy - focusing on proper identification and authorisation of transfers
- an assignment policy for the last /8 from the RIR and whatever address space was returned 

I belive that  if we want to have _need_ included in the policies  it should be in the last two - and we need to come up with a needs criteria and documentation of such that can be audited by an independent party - if we want theese to have some real world legitimacy. 

I think. 


randy

- hph

PS: At the last ICANN meeting the US GAC representative read a long prepared statement on freedom and as little regulation as possible. 


--
Hans Petter Holen
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net