<br><br>On Tuesday, September 24, 2013, Randy Bush wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> IPv4 will, undoubtedly, eventually run out.<br>
<br>
ipv4 will be around after everyone on this list today is retired.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Very good point.�</div><div>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. �</div>
<div>(...)</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
we would like it if the registries acted as registries, i.e. recorded<br>
accurately who controls/owns what address space. �we thought that was<br>
their primary responsibility</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Fully agree.��</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
the registry system has a choice. �it can make it difficult for users<br>
to register, transfer, saut�, whatever address space, in which case<br>
they have some chance at a reasonable level of accuracy in their<br>
registries, or they can make it difficult. �in the latter case, they<br>
will become vestigial organs whose function we will soon not even be<br>
able to remember. �and we sure as heck won't be sending money to them.<br>
<br>
the choice is ours. �today, dealing with the registries' petty rules<br>
and bureaucracy is a major pita. �this policy proposal tries to make<br>
it easier.</blockquote><div><br></div>Since the start of my first encounter with the RIR Ripe 20 years ago we have gradualy<div>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.�</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.�</div>
<div><br></div><div>(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)</div><div><br></div><div>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�</div>
<div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
it really makes small difference what we choose. �the internet will<br>
route around whatever impediments we place. �it's a big river now.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right.�</div><div>It is probably fairly easy to transfer IP Addressess from company A to B in most regions trough other means :</div>
<div><br></div><div>company -A forms subcidiary A-registry ltd. A-registry Ltd is sold to B and then merged with B.�</div><div><br></div><div>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.�</div>
<div><br></div><div>(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).��</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.�</div>
<div><br></div><div>As soon as the market price is higher than the cost to redesign and renumber�this will start to happen.�</div><div><br></div><div>We should probably take this further and split the policy in 3:</div><div>
<br></div><div>- a clear registration policy that applies to everybody and requires addresses to be registered</div><div>- a transfer policy - focusing on proper identification and�authorisation of transfers</div><div>- an assignment policy for the last /8 from the RIR�and whatever address space was returned�</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.�</div>
<div><br></div><div>I�think.�<br></div><div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
randy</blockquote><div><br></div><div>-�hph</div><div><br></div><div>PS: At the last ICANN meeting the US GAC representative read a long prepared statement on freedom and as little regulation as possible.�</div></div><br>
<br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:AvenirNext-Regular;font-size:22px;text-align:left">Hans Petter Holen<br></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:AvenirNext-Regular;font-size:22px;text-align:left">
Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | <a href="mailto:hph@oslo.net" target="_blank">hph@oslo.net</a>�| <a href="http://hph.oslo.net" target="_blank">http://hph.oslo.net</a></div></div><div><br></div></div><br>