[ppml] [sig-policy] Policy Proposal: IPv4 TransferPolicy Proposal

[Scott Leibrand]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> In fact, is there currently a barrier to doing an ERX style
> transfer? For instance, imagine that a European ISP built 
> a network in the USA, using RIPE addresses, and then decided
> to pull out of the USA and sell it to another ISP. The new owner,
> whether located in the EU or the US, decides that it wants 
> to maintain an ARIN relationship for the address blocks used
> in its American network. Assume that the ownership transfer of
> IP addresses within RIPE has already been done. Can this ISP
> transfer these addresses to ARIN under current rules?
>
> If not, why not? What are the specific barriers? If this was
> a US incorporated owner would it make a difference?
>   

My understanding of ERX is that it allows legacy (classful) blocks to be 
transferred between registries.  I think it would be possible to 
ERX-transfer a Class A /8 or a Class B /16 to another RIR, and then 
transfer that space under that RIR's transfer policy.  However, I don't 
think there are any good mechanisms for delegating whois and DNS 
authority for arbitrary CIDR blocks, so I'm not sure the same thing 
would be possible for a non-legacy non-classful allocation or assignment 
received from an RIR.

>
> That's what happens when you try to fix something that ain't broke.
>
> Quite frankly, I have not seen anything yet which sets out the
> issues and shows that there is clearly a concrete problem that
> needs to be fixed. So far it seems more like a game of "me too!"
> but I'm not convinced that any of the participants have clearly
> explained what problem they are trying to solve.
>
> I'm not interested in policies whose rationale is jumping on
> someone else's bandwagon when I don't even know where that
> wagon is headed.
>   

The problem that needs to be fixed is that in a couple years we'll no 
longer be able to assign IPv4 addresses, and it doesn't appear that all 
the technology will be in place to allow everyone to switch to IPv6 at 
that point.  Given that dual-stack will be required, there will be a 
continued requirement to be able to get IPv4 addresses.  Unless we 
provide an incentive to encourage organizations to free up IPv4 space, 
there will not be sufficient IPv4 addresses returned to RIRs to meet 
that demand.  Conversely, if we create a transfer policy that enables a 
market, that will provide IPv4 holders the necessary incentive to free 
up IPv4 space (increasing IPv4 supply), and will encourage organizations 
needing IP addresses to use IPv6 or otherwise reduce their IPv4 needs 
(reducing IPv4 demand).  By balancing supply and demand, a transfer 
market reduces the overall disruption (cost) to the community of 
transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6.

-Scott