[ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

unsubscribe

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Cliff Bedore
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:06 PM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: PPML
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy
Proposal

> 
> Cliff,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback on the IPv4 transfer policy proposal.
> 
> I'd be interested in your feedback on the Safe Harbor language in the 
> policy proposal, as it directly relates to what you said about 
> transferors no longer needing their space.

I guess I'd have to say this strikes me as contrary to what I understand
to be current policy of "efficient utilization" requirements.  It may be
that
in some cases, selling a small section of an allocation wouldn't violate

"efficient utilization" but I think in many cases it would and ARIN
would be
simultaneously requiring the efficiency and letting people not be
efficient if
they are selling numbers for a profit.

---
>From 6.4.1 6.4.1. Address space not to be considered property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests
of
the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered
freehold
property.
---

Whatever the proposed policy says, when someone can get paid for
transferring
something from themselves to another, it strikes me that that something
is 
effectively property.


> 
> On the issue of PIv6 space for IPv4 holders, the policy proposal to 
> allow that did indeed get consensus at ABQ.  Unfortunately, due to 
> issues with wordsmithing on the floor of the meeting, final approval
has 
> been delayed until we can bring the revised wording back at the Denver

> meeting and make sure no one feels it represents a significant change 
> from the intent of the original proposal and what got consensus at
ABQ.

Depending upon the outcome of that policy, I may submit a proposal to
change
that.


Cliff

> 
> -Scott
> 
> Cliff Bedore wrote:
> > Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> In a message written on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:11:33AM -0500,
Cliff Bedore wrote:
> >>   
> >>> I think the idea of this proposal is necessary but I don't think
ARIN should
> >>> be in the business of assisting transfer sales of IP addresses
unless they
> >>> have no assets to fill a legitmate request.  It may be implied
somewhere that
> >>> ARIN will not allow a sale if they have assets available but I
didn't see it.
> >>> Therefore I'm not convinced that "exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free
pool" is
> >>> the correct time.  I think transfer sales should start the first
time ARIN
> >>> can't meet a legitmate request and even after that, should only be
allowed
> >>> when ARIN doesn't have the particular size requested available.  
> >>>     
> >>
> >> In one of our sessions someone proposed "the first time ARIN could
> >> not fill a request"; and we were in fact informed that had already
> >> occurred.  While a bit of a technicality, I suspect the issue was
> >> ARIN did not have enough free space for a large request, and had
> >> to go back to IANA for more space which prevented them from filling
> >> the request right away.
> >>
> >> The problem with using the date ARIN can't make a sale is that it
> >> is different for different people, and in fact may not be what you
> >> request.  ARIN could keep a table of "we can make /18, /19, and
> >> /20's" on the web site, but making a /20 may use up the last /18
> >> and take it away.  Or, someone may ask for a /20, work with ARIN
> >> staff who only sees justification for a /21, but there are none of
> >> those left.  If someone was basing their decision on the
availability
> >> of /20's that won't work so well.
> >>   
> > I realize that ARIN resources and user resources for sale will
happen in 
> > an overlapping manner.  I realize it is a complex problem due to 
> > considerations such as splitting a large block to handle a small
block 
> > vs transfer/sale of a user block of the right size.  Probably more 
> > complex than I can imagine right now but ARIN is also chartered(? 
> > whatever term is correct) to get users to convert to IPv6 and
spending 
> > lots of time and money to extend IPv4 seems to be contrary to that 
> > goal.  I'm not sure anyone coming in for addresses that late in the
game 
> > shouldn't suffer a few delays in getting addresses.  It's not like
they 
> > haven't had ample warning about a shortage.
> >> Lastly, if we wait for ARIN to be unavailable and then spin up the
> >> system described in 2008-2 there will likely be a small gap during
> >> which no one can get space.  While I believe ARIN staff can manage
> >> the transition quite nicely, there is a level of public education,
> >> putting information on the web, having staff process a new type of
> >> request, etc.  I think many on the AC wanted to err on th side of
> >> a small amount of overlap rather than a small gap in service.
> >>   
> > 
> > I don't think ARIN has to wait to set up the procedures.  I just
think 
> > they should wait to start using them. :-)  One problem with listing
end 
> > user blocks for sale is that technically, the end user can no longer

> > justify their current allocation and it would seem that ARIN would
be 
> > justified in reclaiming them is a fair number of cases rather than 
> > approving a transfer sale.
> >> Do any of those reasons alter your opinion, or do you still believe
> >> IANA Free Pool exhaustion is the wrong time?
> >>   
> > 
> > I understand your argument but I think the answer has to decided
based 
> > on whether ARIN is more interested in promoting the switch to v6 or 
> > band-aiding v4 for as long as possible.
> > 
> > ARIN does seem to have something of a split personality toward 
> > perpetuating v4 and promoting v6.  This proposal seems to me to be 
> > bending over backwards toward perpetuating v4.  The proposals to 
> > allow/get legacy users to use v6 and sign RSAs however seems to have

> > some dis-incentives to them.  If ARIN really wanted legacy users to
sign 
> > an RSA and convert to v6, they would allow them to qualify for a v6 
> > allocation equivalent to the v4 size they received during the legacy

> > period without regard to whether they meet the current requirements.
As 
> > an example, I have a /24 PI which was granted long before ARIN ever
came 
> > along.  I currently don't meet the 25/50% rule to justify that /24
but I 
> > did meet the requirements at the time it was issued.  I would think
that 
> > ARIN could offer the minimum v6 allocation to any /24 (or maybe any)

> > legacy holder who is willing to sign the RSA and join the fold.  I
don't 
> > think it would be a big number since I expect many of the legacy 
> > addresses have been abandoned and many who are active would qualify 
> > under current rules but it would demonstrate ARIN's seriousness
about 
> > getting v6 started.  This should probably be a separate discussion
but 
> > it fits in with (at least my perception of) the ARIN split
personality 
> > aspect of the 2008-2
> > 
> > Also note that in reality, I'll probably be retired and in a home
before 
> > my /24 will cease to be useful.  I'd like to get the v6 space to use
for 
> > learning/testing and maybe forcing my upstream ISP to start routing
v6.  
> > If enough people did that, it would help speed the transition.
> > 
> > Cliff
> >>   
> >>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >>   
> > 
> > 
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 


-- 
Cliff Bedore
7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
_______________________________________________
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.


*************************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed.  This communication may contain protected or privileged 
material and should only be viewed by the intended recipient(s).  If 
you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for 
delivering the email to the intended recipient(s), be advised that 
you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, 
forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
Any data contained in this e-mail has been prepared for 
informational purposes only unless otherwise specified.  While
it is believed to be correct, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
*************************************************************************