[139769] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue Apr 19 15:29:18 2011
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <1056555D-F387-4D14-8901-D6E2FA3D5994@istaff.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:29:11 -0700
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
John,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> 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.=20
> How does transfer of number resources within a region imply additional =
whois databases?
Hint:
Add
% whois -h whois.depository.net 128.8.10.5
to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying =
that ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their =
databases with alternative address registrars as they become =
established?
>> 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 find ARIN's new found interests in engaging in ICANN-related processes =
heartwarming given my past experiences, but I suspect both the ICANN and =
RIR venues would be somewhat biased against changing the status quo. As =
for the IGF, my perhaps mistaken perception is that it has a slightly =
different focus than dealing with the operational implications of the =
proliferation of alternative address registrars. The main problem is one =
of timeliness. I doubt the market is going to wait for IGF, ICANN, or =
even RIR processes. But we'll see.=20
Regards,
-drc
