[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:16 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

> Hi Owen,
>  
> As for examples of Whois inaccuracy, how exactly would they be substantiated?
> I can tell you that I am aware of several transactions which have occurred in this manner, but I am not able to divulge the participants.

If you can't provide proof that the transactions have occurred (let alone substantiate the claims that they are widespread or sufficient to pose a problem rather than noise), then I refuse to buy into your argument.

>  However, I was a bidder in the Nortel/Microsoft deal,  and I can tell you that not a single one of the 38 blocks transferred had the name Nortel on it in Whois. Particularly with legacy space, which has no contract assigned which mandates any particular form of transfer, the sale or lease of address rights to another party is legal.  This is one of the very few public transactions which could be mined for proof of Whois inaccuracy, yet it yields evidence.

Do you honestly believe that justified need had anything to do with Nortel's name not being on those blocks? I do not. I believe, instead, that it represented a combination of laziness, apathy, and failures of internal communications within Nortel and the companies Nortel acquired (along with the blocks). For one thing, at the time Nortel acquired those companies (and the blocks along with them), there was no justified need requirement for a merger/acquisition style transfer.

>  You have agreed in the past that it is possible to advertise addresses for which the name in Whois does not match the name of the advertiser. When you put the facts together- no legal obstacle to the transaction involving legacy space and no operational obstacle to the transactions- along with the pecuniary factors, you have a recipe for off-the books transactions which would be invisible to the ARIN community.

First, I don't buy the no legal obstacle argument, but we've already agreed to disagree on that.

Second, while I have agreed that it can, under certain circumstances, be possible to advertise a block where the names do not match, that is not the same as "no operational obstacle", nor is it a claim that anyone can announce any block they want with any particular degree of useful success. Further, I think that it has, over time, become progressively more difficult to do so and that eventually RPKI may well pose a serious obstacle to such advertisements.

> From my perspective, there are absolutely some buyers and sellers who are willing to engage in off-the-books transactions, although I will concede that they are in the minority. 

The question is do they represent a sufficiently large minority to even matter. I have seen no evidence so far to indicate that they do. Further, I suspect that they are a declining population because as recipients have more difficulty making use of blocks transferred off the books, other recipients will be less likely to engage in such transactions.

> Thanks for considering support for an experiment in removing the needs test for transactions of a /22 or less per year or in aggregate.  I do consider that size too small to have much of an effect on the market, but even that kind of policy change might encourage a seller to consider slicing off chunks of his block and engaging in many transactions with multiple buyers, because one element of transactional uncertainty-the buyer’s needs test- would be removed.

Of course, then you run into the uncertainty of being able to route the increasing number of /22s that you think would result.

> I began this discussion off-list with as an attempt to take the community’s temperature in regards to a potential policy proposal to remove needs-testing of transfers, at least in a limited way. I hoped that my experience as a broker of addresses would be informative, and that potential movement in RIPE away from needs-testing transfers might elevate consideration of such a proposal here.

You began this discussion some time ago with a policy proposal which attempted to remove needs basis, was soundly rejected by the community, and which you backed off to the same compromise you are again proposing now. The community didn't want any part of it back then. At the time, there was no interest in continuing the discussion and the proposal was abandoned. Jason's proposal seems to have brought forth a small, but vocal group of people who want to revive this discussion.

> Also, can you send me (off list) anybody you are aware of who can consult on ARIN justifications? Thanks!

I do some consulting myself. I'm sure there are a number of others. I will not take this opportunity to advertise for my competitors.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130619/57b75ce8/attachment.htm>