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

[Cliff Bedore]

Rather than quote long messages regarding this, I'm going to start a new
message about this.

Scott Leibrand wrote 

---
I actually look at it a bit differently.  IMO we are attempting to
encourage efficient utilization in several ways.  The primary current
way, which will continue under the proposed transfer policy, is to
require efficient use of current space, and plans to efficiently use new
space, before anyone can get additional space.  Today, we don't have any
good method of going back to legacy holders, and those whose networks
are no longer growing, and verify efficient use.  Recent proposals
confirmed that ARIN has the right to do so, but I haven't seen much
space reclaimed as a result of that.  Additionally, and perhaps more
importantly, space can be in use for purposes of audit, but may not be
absolutely needed.  Without some incentive, most organizations in that
situation won't want to take on the task of renumbering things to free
up space.
 
So as I see it, encouraging people to free up space by allowing them to
transfer it is a very effective way to encourage efficient utilization.
  If you have ideas for equally effective ways to encourage such
behavior, I'd love to hear them, but I don't think I've seen any so far.
---

I think 2007-17 provides for such reclamation albeit without any money
changing hands.


Leo Bicknell wrote
---
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.
---

I think this argument lends credence to the claim that numbers have become
property. 

I just see this as a very slippery slope that once ARIN starts down, there
will be no going back and there may be unforseen consequences of numbers
becoming de facto property.  I.e. once IP numbers become property, who is ARIN
to regulate it as a monopoly.  You can say it's not property but if it walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck.....  I just see this becoming a legal
nightmare.  It might be possible to avoid the property problem if the numbers
have to be returned to ARIN and then redistributed but I can't see how payment
between transferee and transferor could be made in that case.

Cliff


-- 
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/