[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Vegoda]

On 20/02/2008 11:08, "Scott Leibrand" <sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:

[...]

> It is our belief that such speculative behavior is antithetical to the
> goal of smoothing the upcoming transition, so we attempted to introduce
> mechanisms to ensure that transfers occur only between organizations
> with a legitimate surplus of addresses, and those with a legitimate need
> for them.  The period selected (24 months) seemed like a good balance
> between eliminating the quick-profit motive for speculation, while
> allowing a legitimate transition of an ISP from needing IPv4 addresses
> to being able to transition a surplus after moving to IPv6 or otherwise
> freeing up addresses in use.
>
> Having said that, the time periods in this proposal are somewhat
> tentative, and we have always intended to change them as needed to
> reflect the community's consensus.  So if you would like to make an
> argument for shorter or longer timeframes on this or any other clause,
> please do.

I don't know whether 24 months is better than another length of time.
However, it seems that the current proposal would mean that if a network got
a six month supply of IPv4 space from ARIN six months before the IANA free
pool was exhausted they would have to wait a further 18 months before they
could transfer away any prefixes they no longer needed. These numbers would
change if proposal 2007-22  is accepted.

Is it possible to give an accurate prediction for how long ARIN will be able
to supply the minimum allocation size after IANA's free pool is empty? If
it's at least 18 months then I suppose that's OK. But an awkward period
where ARIN's free pool cannot supply the minimum allocation and transfers
are not yet allowed doesn't sound like a good idea.

Is an awkward hiatus likely? What length of time would be needed to make
speculation unattractive but maintain a steady supply of address space from
ARIN or transfers?

Regards,

Leo