[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>    So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4
> transfer policy, and why?

Hi John,

My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the
existence of a transfer policy.

Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their
networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the
current owner of those business elements.

Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently
reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to
another's higher-value applications.

Value being in the view of the two respective resource holders, not
some wacky top-down definition.


>    I will get things going with a potential
> less-contentious
>    example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is
> necessary
>    to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While
> the
>    ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30’s suddenly
>    appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any
> benefit in
>    creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the
> Internet if
>    ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to start with the
underlying need for ARIN to have a transfer policy and drill down
later. Minimum block size is a secondary objective we might want
addressing policy in general (including a transfer policy) to achieve.
It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for
transfer policy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>