[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Stacy Taylor]

We should also take into account the network abusers and spammers out there.
 The longer timetable for coming back for another transfer would go toward
keeping space cleaner, longer, and letting the spammers stew in their own
dirty space.Stacy

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
wrote:

> On 02/20/08 at 6:15pm -0800, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
>
> > On 20/02/2008 17:37, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >> If they just got a 6 month supply of addresses, shouldn't that imply
> >> that they don't have any addresses they can free up?
> >
> > There could be addresses to free up when customer numbers drop or
> service
> > offerings change.
> >
> > In the former case, a drop in revenue could be temporarily plugged by
> > 'selling off' address space. In the latter case, an ISP might want to
> offer
> > a basic web-only service provided with an RFC 1918 address while
> 'selling
> > off' the freed up address space to gain some extra revenue.
> >
> > I think both these scenarios could happen. They aren't necessarily good
> > things - but someone else might need that address space and if so, why
> not
> > let them get hold of it?
>
> I would agree, but would also argue that the shorter we make the waiting
> period, the more incentive we give for someone who might be inclined to
> "game" the system, by acquiring as many addresses as they can justify
> prior to exhaustion (causing a "run on the bank") and then turning around
> to transfer them again right after exhaustion.
>
> So, does a 24 month waiting period appropriately balance the legitimate
> need for address recipients to become transferors with the need to prevent
> "flipping"?  Or should that timeframe be shorter/longer?  (I know Leo
> already answered "I don't know", but perhaps others have some input.)
>
> -Scott
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
:):)
/S
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080221/965dbb13/attachment.htm>