[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement

[Christoph Blecker]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Michael Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> You have identified a distinction between ASNs and IPv4 addresses, but is it
> really a difference?
> What does it matter that the one is in short supply and the other isn't?
>
> Both are resources used in the running of the Internet.
> Both come from the same source.
> Both are part of the all-important registry.
> Both are items that holders are desirous of transferring.
>
> What is the downside to taking a step towards registry accuracy?
> Are we worried about speculation and hoarding of ASNs now?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Burns
> IPTrading.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron wrote:
> I disagree with the proposal, which as it stands attempts to conflate
> "IPv4 address resources" with Autonomous System Numbers.
>
>
> I don't think that the transfers have anything to do with each other,
> and shouldn't be governed by the same principles. The language "IPv4
> number resources and ASNs" suggests that some ASNs are "IPv4" and some
> are not.
>
> IPv4 addresses are a legacy resource in exceedingly short and dwindling
> supply, which cannot easily be replaced by IPv6 addresses (regardless of
> our desire to do so). They are also amenable to aggregation. And they'll
> eventually go away.
>
> ASNs are NOT in short supply. A 4-byte ASN means we have room in the
> world for...uh...4 billion ISPs and multi-homers? Is that right? (wow,
> talk about competition!). And ASN aggregation is meaningless, so
> "efficient utilization" isn't really a desirable goal.
>
>> From what my attention-addled brain gathers, the ASN transfer market is
>
> about "vanity numbers" - i.e. low 2-byte or memorable ASNs. If there's
> really a need for Inter-RIR transfers of vanity numbers, by all means
> let's create a proposal in conjunction with other RIRs - but adding them
> to the existing IPv4 transfer policy is jut going to make discussions
> about the transfer policy more difficult. It will also make sunsetting
> said policies in an IPv6 world impossible, since 4-byte ASNs will be
> with us for MUCH longer than IPv4 addresses.


Multiple people, including the originator have indicated that there is
some sort of black market of ASNs. I find a hard time believing this
is the case. The fact is, an ASN is some random number that is only
used by networking people. It's only value is A) that it's unique, B)
it's identifiable via a registry, and C) this idea by some that a
smaller number is automatically better. If the ASN isn't identifiable
via a registry, what value does the ASN have?

Is there any statistics or proof for the community that there are
networks actively utilizing ASNs, that are assigned to somebody else
registry, and would have a claim to them as far as a transfer is
concerned?

Cheers,
Christoph