IPv4 address exchange

John Curran jcurran at istaff.org
Tue Apr 19 11:36:38 CDT 2011


On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly being proposed.  What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and multiple competing 'post-allocation services' providers.  A single registry with a single database schema and data representation would seem to me to be infinitely better than what we have now (and what it looks like we're moving towards).  I personally don't have a strong opinion on the competitive address registrar idea as long as there is a consistent set of registration requirements, but in my experience (reasonably regulated) competition tends to bring higher quality/lower prices vs. monopolies.

Alas, you seem to have better perception skills, since I can't find any proposal
containing any of what you outlined above.

>> What we lack is any meaningful proposals on how to restructure the Internet
>> number registry system, including what are the goals of doing such, how are 
>> those goals and the existing requirements are met, and what protections are 
>> needed for integrity of the system.
> 
> Unfortunately, I suspect we are past the time in which a well thought out, global consultative action (even assuming an agreeable venue for such a consultation can be identified) would result in a plan of action before being overtaken by events. There are already two "address registrars" and at least 5 (6 if you count IANA) address whois databases.  I expect there to be more in the future, particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and the Internet doesn't explode. 

How does transfer of number resources within a region imply additional whois
databases?

> Hoever, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic.  What venue do you propose for a global consultative action to be taken in an open, transparent, an unbiased manner?

I've suggested ICANN, IGF, or the RIRs...  (I include the last one specifically
for Mr. Mueller, since he observed "One comes away with the conviction that the 
so-called bottom up policymaking .. is actually (more or less) seriously pursued 
here." and "I really liked the way nearly all ARIN discussions are in plenary and 
decisions are actually made. "
<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/4/20/4509826.html>)

FYI,
/John



More information about the NANOG mailing list