[ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Owen DeLong]

> I realize that ARIN resources and user resources for sale will  
> happen in an overlapping manner.  I realize it is a complex problem  
> due to considerations such as splitting a large block to handle a  
> small block vs transfer/sale of a user block of the right size.   
> Probably more complex than I can imagine right now but ARIN is also  
> chartered(? whatever term is correct) to get users to convert to  
> IPv6 and spending lots of time and money to extend IPv4 seems to be  
> contrary to that goal.  I'm not sure anyone coming in for addresses  
> that late in the game shouldn't suffer a few delays in getting  
> addresses.  It's not like they haven't had ample warning about a  
> shortage.

Could you please point to the document where it states that ARIN is  
charged
with encouraging one protocol vs. another?

I believe that ARIN is charged with the stewardship of address space  
in the
ARIN service region. While I would agree that IPv4 has a finite number  
of
addresses and a limited ability to support the continued growth of the  
internet,
I also believe that ARIN has a protocol-independent obligation to  
provide
the best stewardship possible over ALL IP Number resources (IPv6,  
IPv4, and
ASN) so long as the community is using them.
>
> I understand your argument but I think the answer has to decided  
> based on whether ARIN is more interested in promoting the switch to  
> v6 or band-aiding v4 for as long as possible.
>
You say that as if they are mutually exclusive.  I am not convinced  
that they always are.

> ARIN does seem to have something of a split personality toward  
> perpetuating v4 and promoting v6.  This proposal seems to me to be  
> bending over backwards toward perpetuating v4.  The proposals to  
> allow/get legacy users to use v6 and sign RSAs however seems to have  
> some dis-incentives to them.  If ARIN really wanted legacy users to  
> sign an RSA and convert to v6, they would allow them to qualify for  
> a v6 allocation equivalent to the v4 size they received during the  
> legacy period without regard to whether they meet the current  
> requirements.  As an example, I have a /24 PI which was granted long  
> before ARIN ever came along.  I currently don't meet the 25/50% rule  
> to justify that /24 but I did meet the requirements at the time it  
> was issued.  I would think that ARIN could offer the minimum v6  
> allocation to any /24 (or maybe any) legacy holder who is willing to  
> sign the RSA and join the fold.  I don't think it would be a big  
> number since I expect many of the legacy addresses have been  
> abandoned and many who are active would qualify under current rules  
> but it would demonstrate ARIN's seriousness about getting v6  
> started.  This should probably be a separate discussion but it fits  
> in with (at least my perception of) the ARIN split personality  
> aspect of the 2008-2

In this respect, you are speaking of ARIN as if it is some distant  
body independent from you.

If you feel such a policy would be accepted by the community and is of  
benefit, I encourage
you to download the policy template from the ARIN web site, review the  
Internet Resource
Policy Evaluation Process at http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html,  
complete the template
and submit it as a proposed policy.

Any member of the community may submit a proposed policy.

If you have any questions or would like further assistance in this,  
please feel free to contact
me, or, any other member of the ARIN AC.  This is one of the key  
reasons we have an AC.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080228/35f44a17/attachment.htm>