On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Sep 9, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Not sure when ICANN got into the business of economic bailouts,
??
The blog posting implies it: "AfriNIC and LACNIC have fewest IPv4 /8s and service the regions with the most developing economies. We decided that those RIRs should have four of the easiest to use /8s reserved for them." There is also a possible unintended consequence. If v4 address space markets do end up being legitimized (I do believe that they will FWIW) ICANN is in effect declaring one class of space more valuable than another an arbitrarily assigning that value.
but the mechanism that ICANN has defined seems patently unfair.
RFC 2777 is unfair? Or are you unhappy that LACNIC and AfriNIC have 2 /8s from the least tainted pools?
I don't have a comment on the RFC. There is currently a global policy that the RIR's and ICANN agreed to that defines the allocation of /8's from IANA to RIR's. That policy doesnt include a set-aside and I think that arbitrarily adding one is not in the spirit of cooperation. I think that it's "good" that ICANN is being proactive, but I also think that it's "bad" that they chose this to be proactive about. It's possible that not everything is above the table as well. I think that the perception is reality here though. ICANN has arbitrarily created process that impacts RIR's unequally. To me, that's unfair. Question is -- do a few /8's really matter? In the end game, I think that they do all considered. Best, Marty -- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants