- this would seem to imply that RFC1597 is now *compulsory* for privat internets
No, see my answer to Simon.
(I actually meant that as a question, but ...) So dropping the last resort registries does little or nothing to reduce non-provider addresses, since organisations can still acquire address space from one provider and connectivity from another. The allocation of addresses that may not be aggregateable continues, only now by different registries. I'm not sure I see how relocating the registry activities helps global routing.
I mentioned the main problems im my proposal.
Re-reading your proposal there appears to be three lines of discussion, which in order of importance are: 1/ last-resort registries allocate non-aggregateable address space (which in the future may be useless as no one will route it). 2/ last-resort registries are less necessary than was the case because of the proliferation of provider registries 3/ last-resort registries do not currently fit into the NCC charging model. and a fourth point, from one of your replies to Simon: 4/ "end-users will be warned better about what they are getting" if they obtain their addresses from provider registries, rather than last resort registries (Have I missed anything ?) Going through these points, I don't believe dropping last-resort registries solves #1, as non-aggregateable address will still be allocated albeit by different registries. #2 is true, but not necessarily a reason to drop the LR registries: less demand for them is not the same as no demand. A similar argument can be advanced against #3 - the fact that the charging model may need to be modified to accommodate the LR registries is not by itself sufficient reason to drop the registries. I'm not at all convinced by #4. Consider the following scenario: a provider registry allocates a block of addresses to a private internet, that claims it has no intention of connecting to the global Internet. The provider registry levies a charge for this (they win). 18 months later the private internet then decides it does wish to connect to the global Internet. However now they find that the only provider prepared to carry their addresses is the one that allocated them in the first place. Hence unless they are prepared to renumber they are locked into the first provider (thus the provider wins again). The same would have been true had they acquired the addresses from a last-resort registry, however unlike the last-resort registries it is in the provider's interest *NOT* to tell the customer about the possible restrictions in the use of the addresses. I'm happy to see the last-resort registries disappear (we'd be *extremely* happy to get shot of the load from our LR registry :-) ) if it is brings significant benefit to the community. However on the basis of the arguments I've seen here, I personally think that the benefit is not yet proven. Kevin Hoadley, JIPS NOSC.