All of the RIR's are in denial, refusing to recognize their hypocrisy when telling customers that IP addresses are not property, while at the same time insisting that the last N /8's become the property of an RIR to the exclusion of the rest of the world. Then arguing with each other about the 'appropriate size' for N while they are at it.
The existing practice will come to an end the day the first RIR has to tell a customer to go away because they have run out of space. The world will not tolerate a resource being freely available in one place while in high demand but unavailable elsewhere. There will be people circumventing the rules, and the more restrictive the RIRs try to be, the more bizarre the impact will be to the routing and registration systems. The only hope the smaller RIRs have of dealing with the mess is to let the larger ones front the requests and deal with the documentation. Denying that there will be a problem only ensures that there will be no documentation of the fact that the address space went where the demand was. It should be noted that while ARIN and RIPE turned this down as worded, they were both at least willing to understand the concept and talk about a way to address it. I never expected this specific wording to be in any formal proposals, it was there as an example to base a discussion on. Since there was no discussion, this was the wording that all regions are looking at. At the same time, it was not necessary that this be a global proposal, as any that agree could participate without requiring all to do so. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Vincent Ngundi > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:10 AM > To: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List > Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Proposal Summary - Cooperative > Distribution of the End of the IANA IPv4 Free Pool > > Hi Cisco Phil, > > Thanks for this insight. > > > BTW, this was thrown out of the APNIC region when proposed there, > > and given that all RIR regions would have to support it, it isn't > > clear to me why it is even being proposed here. > > (a) Being a global policy, it was proposed at the same time in all > RIR's. > > (b) For a policy to be rejected by members of the AfriNIC region, it > must go through the approved policy development policy. Let's see > what the community has to say. > > Regards, > > -Vincent > > -- > KeNIC - The Kenya Network Information Center > http://www.kenic.or.ke > > "dot KE for Every Name in Kenya!" > > > _______________________________________________ > rpd mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
