[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal

> 
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> 
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> What you CANNOT have, is your cake and eat it to.  You CANNOT have 
> >> prolonged
> >> IPv4 lifespan without an increase in deaggregation.
> >
> > I don't often find myself 100% agreeing with Ted, but this 
> is one of 
> > those cases.  I don't believe that preventing deaggregation is 
> > plausible.  I suspect that attempts to do so with move parties 
> > interested in using the transfer policy (if approved) into 
> the black 
> > market to avoid dealing with the policy limitations.
> 
> 
> Okay, either I'm missing something completely here or 
> everyone else has gotten so wrapped up in the idea of 
> transferring space that nobody's considering the alternative 
> that I think is a whole heck of a lot more likely... which is 
> already possible and going to cause deaggregation wether we 
> want it or not.
> 
> Why sell when you can rent and keep collecting cash?

Kevin, I agree.  This is a fear I have of the whole loosened transfer
policy.
Given that the policy were put in place, this loosens not just the
transfer policy, but the notion of who's in charge.
I see that legacy block holders and those that can free up sizeable
blocks can become local registries and who's to stop that?

> 
> Right now I can go to any colo provider and say "I want a 
> half dozen racks, power, and connectivity for my 150 
> servers." and pretty easily get a /23 or larger. Now what 
> happens if I say "You know, why don't you forget about the 
> racks, power, bandwidth and everything else...  
> How much would just the /23 be per month?"
> 
> This is possible right now, and as far as I can tell not 
> breaking any policies. A big hosting or colo provider with 
> excess v4 space can SWIP space to the highest bidder for a 
> large monthly check, and have the security that if they end 
> up needing more v4 later they can pull it back. There's no 
> need for a black market, no need for complying with a 
> complicated transfer policy, no need to give up space 
> irrevocably, and it becomes a continuing revenue stream 
> instead of a one off payment.  
> As v4 space gets more and more scarce, the market price goes 
> up along with the asking price.
> 
> I don't think there's any way this can be prevented under 
> current policies, and even though it feels wrong I don't know 
> how you can prevent this without preventing other more 
> "legitimate" business.  
> Require that the address space come with some kind of 
> service? Okay, throw in a dialup PPP line with it. Where do 
> you draw the line that won't take more time to verify than it's worth?
> 
> Rather than a stock-market like service of selling IP space, 
> I think it's a lot more likely that we're going to see ISPs 
> offering IP space as a standalone monthly service.
> 
> This will cause deaggregation.
> 
> This is possible already, with no policy changes.
> 
> I'd actually be surprised if it's not happening already for 
> networks that were denied by their RIR.
> 
> -- Kevin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at 
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>