On 14/04/2010 09:48, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else in the world. (*)

Just a clarification... As this is a global policy proposal, all RIR regions would have to be in agreement for it to be implemented. In that case, yes, resources returned to IANA would later be re-allocated, possibly to other regions than they came from. As things stand today, with the ARIN community having agreed on a different text than the other RIRs' communities, this proposal fails as a global policy; which means that it will not be implemented. cheers, Axel

* Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which placed such laws on their respective books. It was generally considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have followed suit.

--bill

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:

...

Hello,

Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ???

Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.).

Regards, Carlos

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote:

...

Folks,

As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.

All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.

All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:

1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with the other regions, apart from Arin.

2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity with Arin, but with no one else

3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...

4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to withdraw the proposal in this region.

Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become available then it would be used for the greater good of all the registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt that it was worth making a statement about.

The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and put the matter to bed once and for all.

I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate how they would like to move this forward.

All the best

Nigel