Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we
should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the "old
ways." It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations,
/8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently
allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to
have any responsibility to do anything about it.
There's a lot of space between throwing caution to the wind and the
current set of agreements. The current v6 agreements read a lot like
the v4 agreements.
If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access
to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and
start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we
have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation
policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those
people that "greedily" ate up as much space as they could.
Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem.
I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of
accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable
and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've
gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to
policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties
involved already have an established relationship.
That sets off my radar detector a bit. If you're justifying the need
for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree... the
desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a
compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements. Even in v4land,
we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious
reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical.
With that in mind, claims that there needs to be thorough accounting
kind of comes off like "trust us, we're in charge, we know what we need
but we can't really explain it aside from invoking the boogeyman."
On one hand? You absolutely don't want to go around delegating /20's
to organizations that clearly have no need. On the other hand, you
don't need heavyhanded agreements to avoid that in the first place.
This is kind of off-topic for NANOG, so I'll stick with what I've
said unless someone has a really good point.