[ppml] FW: No transfer policies are needed
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Sun Apr 20 07:06:32 EDT 2008
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Chris Grundemann
Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 1:44 PM
To: michael.dillon at bt.com; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] No transfer policies are needed
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> > What we're facing with
> > IPv4 exhaustion is a requirement for redistribution,...
> This is where I disagree that there is any such problem which
> needs solving. I have seen no evidence that organizations will
> start getting rid of any of their IPv4 allocations when they
> can no longer get fresh new ones.
My biggest question to anyone who will answer at this point is; "why
do we need a transfer policy?"
I have wondered this myself. I started out totally against a transfer market, but two things made me swing more towards acceptance.
1. IPv6 incomplete in all details. If IPv6 were adoptable by anyone everywhere today and gave the same assurance of reliability, reachability, interoperability and performance that IPv4 systems deliver...that is, across ALL products and software that is in play...then I would not support any transfer policy beyond what we have.
2. If hardship occurs because space is not readily available through ARIN for its service area, and ARIN has done nothing..extraordinary toward relieving that hardship, then it will be seem by those who wish its demise to have abdicated its stewardship responsibilities and will become fodder for propaganda against the current Internet governance model.
I am still against the transfer policy at a fundamental level because:
1. It appears to monetize IP address resources which goes against our tradition and past policy... this in itself can be used against the ARIN from a stewardship point of view it seems. And, this appears to..and may in fact... be bad for emerging areas of the Internet, as address resources are transferred from poorer areas to those with cash.
2. It appears to reward large legacy holders who squatted on resources that others in the industry need. ARIN's actions in supporting a transfer policy that recognizes if not actively accounts for the 'selling' of address resources seems to sanction this activity.
3. ARIN's support for the type of activity that a monetized transfer policy enables appears outside ARIN's expressed mission and past policy and will use up 'member' resources to reward the legacy holders who are largely outside of ARIN's membership and have had a free ride on basic services all along. It seems that those resources would be better spent and be in better alignment with the mission of ARIN if they were directed towards informing the industry about IPv6 and transition and bootstrapping the removal of impediments to protocol migration.
So, I guess I come down this way (at least that's where the pendulum is now)...
1. ARIN should document the titular transfer of IPv4 address resources from the haves to have-nots on a permanent basis, but should reiterate that these resources are not property and thus have no intrinsic value. As such, ARIN will declare its disdain for fees for transfer, encouraging instead, the return of address resources to ARIN for reallocation/assignment within the ARIN region or to other RIRs having need...as the ARIN constituents may direct. As such, ARIN will neither recognize/capture nor analyze financial information that may be reported with such transfers.
2. The transfer services should be conducted for a limited period of time, with the sunset established upon expected adoption rates of IPv6.
3. ARIN should begin a program of awareness and education aim at impediment identification and mitigation. This program designed to touch all constituencies of the Internet industry and helping to facilitate the smooth and riskless transition to IPv6.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML