Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IAN

To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:10:33 -0400
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <m21v9llumg.wl%randy at psg dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty@akamai.com>
Thread-index: ActE7WCdoYBlCsyGQcGizTHPwFv4ZgAdb4hN
Thread-topic: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.6.0.100712

On 8/26/10 3:07 AM, "Randy Bush" <randy at psg dot com> wrote:

>> Still, if you really believe that your carve out will last many years you
>> are arguing moot points since you would never need to receive any of this
>> address space. 
> 
> fallacious.
> 
> the space returned to the iana could be used to allocate under v4
> policies other than the last /8 policy.
> 
> randy

Summarizing the "discussion":

As Philip noted, 'no proposal should meddle in a regions affairs'. There is
a clear correlation between the APNIC regions non-needs based transfer
policy and the ARIN region declining to signup for mandatory address
returns. 1:1. 

Minus the points of contention, if such a proposal is no longer needed,
that's probably much easier to say. If it is needed and wasn't just filler
text for trying to force another regions hand, I would argue that it might
be better to simply cut and paste the previous proposal sans the requirement
or with an insertion about non-needs based transfer.

Seems like the ball is squarely in the APNIC regions court.

Best Regards,

-M<