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

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 02:11:18PM -0500, Cliff Bedore wrote:
>    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.

The most common case people consider when thinking about this policy
is the resource holder who now has "extra" for whatever reason.
That however is not the only case of interest.

One of the economic theories here is that different companies have
different costs to move to IPv6.  Perhaps there is a company out
there that is fully using a /19 right now, and to do IPv6 needs to
buy $20,000 worth of new hardware which they cannot afford.  However,
if a /20 is going for $20,000 they can buy the equipment on credit,
renumber half their users out of it, sell the /20 to pay for the
equipment, and end up with a /20 going forward.

So it's not that they don't need the /19 today or aren't fully using
it; but rather that a financial incentive may get them to move to
IPv6 and free up IPv4 resources.

The /20 may be purchased by someone who has $1,000,000 in expenses to
move to IPv6, and paying $20,000 to delay it until the price of
equipment drops is in their best interest.

>    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

I believe policy proposal 2007-21 is of interst to you:

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_21.html

As Scott already posted, it would likely be in place already were
it not for some language issues.  I suggest you voice your support for
the proposal if you think it's a good idea.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080228/1acdddb2/attachment.sig>