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

Thu Feb 28 16:06:19 EST 2008

> 
> Cliff,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback on the IPv4 transfer policy proposal.
> 
> I'd be interested in your feedback on the Safe Harbor language in the 
> policy proposal, as it directly relates to what you said about 
> transferors no longer needing their space.

I guess I'd have to say this strikes me as contrary to what I understand
to be current policy of "efficient utilization" requirements.  It may be that
in some cases, selling a small section of an allocation wouldn't violate 
"efficient utilization" but I think in many cases it would and ARIN would be
simultaneously requiring the efficiency and letting people not be efficient if
they are selling numbers for a profit.

---
>From 6.4.1 6.4.1. Address space not to be considered property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of
the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold
property.
---

Whatever the proposed policy says, when someone can get paid for transferring
something from themselves to another, it strikes me that that something is 
effectively property.

> 
> On the issue of PIv6 space for IPv4 holders, the policy proposal to 
> allow that did indeed get consensus at ABQ.  Unfortunately, due to 
> issues with wordsmithing on the floor of the meeting, final approval has 
> been delayed until we can bring the revised wording back at the Denver 
> meeting and make sure no one feels it represents a significant change 
> from the intent of the original proposal and what got consensus at ABQ.

Depending upon the outcome of that policy, I may submit a proposal to change
that.

Cliff

> 
> -Scott
> 
> Cliff Bedore wrote:
> > Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >> In a message written on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:11:33AM -0500, Cliff Bedore wrote:
> >>   
> >>> I think the idea of this proposal is necessary but I don't think ARIN should
> >>> be in the business of assisting transfer sales of IP addresses unless they
> >>> have no assets to fill a legitmate request.  It may be implied somewhere that
> >>> ARIN will not allow a sale if they have assets available but I didn't see it.
> >>> Therefore I'm not convinced that "exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 free pool" is
> >>> the correct time.  I think transfer sales should start the first time ARIN
> >>> can't meet a legitmate request and even after that, should only be allowed
> >>> when ARIN doesn't have the particular size requested available.  
> >>>     
> >>
> >> In one of our sessions someone proposed "the first time ARIN could
> >> not fill a request"; and we were in fact informed that had already
> >> occurred.  While a bit of a technicality, I suspect the issue was
> >> ARIN did not have enough free space for a large request, and had
> >> to go back to IANA for more space which prevented them from filling
> >> the request right away.
> >>
> >> The problem with using the date ARIN can't make a sale is that it
> >> is different for different people, and in fact may not be what you
> >> request.  ARIN could keep a table of "we can make /18, /19, and
> >> /20's" on the web site, but making a /20 may use up the last /18
> >> and take it away.  Or, someone may ask for a /20, work with ARIN
> >> staff who only sees justification for a /21, but there are none of
> >> those left.  If someone was basing their decision on the availability
> >> of /20's that won't work so well.
> >>   
> > 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.
> >> Lastly, if we wait for ARIN to be unavailable and then spin up the
> >> system described in 2008-2 there will likely be a small gap during
> >> which no one can get space.  While I believe ARIN staff can manage
> >> the transition quite nicely, there is a level of public education,
> >> putting information on the web, having staff process a new type of
> >> request, etc.  I think many on the AC wanted to err on th side of
> >> a small amount of overlap rather than a small gap in service.
> >>   
> > 
> > I don't think ARIN has to wait to set up the procedures.  I just think 
> > they should wait to start using them. :-)  One problem with listing end 
> > user blocks for sale is that technically, the end user can no longer 
> > justify their current allocation and it would seem that ARIN would be 
> > justified in reclaiming them is a fair number of cases rather than 
> > approving a transfer sale.
> >> Do any of those reasons alter your opinion, or do you still believe
> >> IANA Free Pool exhaustion is the wrong time?
> >>   
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > Also note that in reality, I'll probably be retired and in a home before 
> > my /24 will cease to be useful.  I'd like to get the v6 space to use for 
> > learning/testing and maybe forcing my upstream ISP to start routing v6.  
> > If enough people did that, it would help speed the transition.
> > 
> > Cliff
> >>   
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >>   
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 

-- 
Cliff Bedore
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/