[arin-ppml] Further revisions to 2008-2?
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com
Thu Aug 28 07:09:33 EDT 2008
After reading all the debate about 2008-2, I'll offer the following thoughts.
I think overall the policy will help more than it hurts. Think of it as
needing a gallon of gas to get to the dealer to trade in your old clunker (v4)
for the hot new car on the lot (v6).
I think ARIN should not refer in any way to auctioning/selling/etc of IP
addresses. It should simply be a modification of the rules to allow a direct
transfer of addresses between two elegible parties. That way all the debate
about "selling" and "property" etc can be avoided. All current restrictiona
about numbers not being property will be maintained.
I believe any entity receiving addresses under this policy must qualify for
them in the same way they do under existing policy.
I believe the only qualification for a transferor should be a reasonably good
provenence showing the address space is theirs to transfer.
I have mixed feelings about ARIN getting involved with the listing of
addresses offered for transfer. I was originally against it but if ARIN only
lists addresses that meet the provenence clause, that would ease many people's
minds about the legitimacy of the addresses offered. I worry about ARIN
getting caught up in lawsuits when things get tight and people get desparate.
I don't think the policy should become effective until some reasonably low
level of available "free" addresses has been reached. Doing it sooner could
put conflicting policies in place. Although if the quilifications section
remain the same for transferees, the market may take care of itself. If I
have to qualify for/justify addresses under either method of getting
addresses, who's going to pay for addresses when they can get them for free.
Alternatively, if we have reached the arbitrary low level of available
address space, maybe the transferee wouldn't need to justify the space and
only the transferor's provenence would need to be checked. It should be one
or the other else "spammers/other bad guys" could buy space now with no
justification and make life more miserable.
I am not really knowledgeable enough to know where the deagregation point is
but I think there should be a point below which now transfer should not be
allowed if it will cause major changes to the routing tables. Worst case
scenario is all the holders of /24s that are not now routed being offered and
trying to fit them in the tables. However, an existing routed /24 would
probably be ok.
My $.03 worth (inflation)
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/
More information about the ARIN-PPML