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

[Cliff Bedore]

Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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 guess it seems to me that when you have a scarce resource and 
completely  non-scarce resource, good stewardship would demand that 
emphasis be given to encouraging use of the non-scarce resource.

>
> 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.

See above

>
>> 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.

After the meeting depending upon the results of 2007-21, I'll probably 
propose something.

Cliff
>
> Owen
>