[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Mar 12 10:12:43 EDT 2008
> On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >> What you CANNOT have, is your cake and eat it to. You CANNOT have
> >> prolonged
> >> IPv4 lifespan without an increase in deaggregation.
> > I don't often find myself 100% agreeing with Ted, but this
> is one of
> > those cases. I don't believe that preventing deaggregation is
> > plausible. I suspect that attempts to do so with move parties
> > interested in using the transfer policy (if approved) into
> the black
> > market to avoid dealing with the policy limitations.
> Okay, either I'm missing something completely here or
> everyone else has gotten so wrapped up in the idea of
> transferring space that nobody's considering the alternative
> that I think is a whole heck of a lot more likely... which is
> already possible and going to cause deaggregation wether we
> want it or not.
> Why sell when you can rent and keep collecting cash?
Kevin, I agree. This is a fear I have of the whole loosened transfer
Given that the policy were put in place, this loosens not just the
transfer policy, but the notion of who's in charge.
I see that legacy block holders and those that can free up sizeable
blocks can become local registries and who's to stop that?
> Right now I can go to any colo provider and say "I want a
> half dozen racks, power, and connectivity for my 150
> servers." and pretty easily get a /23 or larger. Now what
> happens if I say "You know, why don't you forget about the
> racks, power, bandwidth and everything else...
> How much would just the /23 be per month?"
> This is possible right now, and as far as I can tell not
> breaking any policies. A big hosting or colo provider with
> excess v4 space can SWIP space to the highest bidder for a
> large monthly check, and have the security that if they end
> up needing more v4 later they can pull it back. There's no
> need for a black market, no need for complying with a
> complicated transfer policy, no need to give up space
> irrevocably, and it becomes a continuing revenue stream
> instead of a one off payment.
> As v4 space gets more and more scarce, the market price goes
> up along with the asking price.
> I don't think there's any way this can be prevented under
> current policies, and even though it feels wrong I don't know
> how you can prevent this without preventing other more
> "legitimate" business.
> Require that the address space come with some kind of
> service? Okay, throw in a dialup PPP line with it. Where do
> you draw the line that won't take more time to verify than it's worth?
> Rather than a stock-market like service of selling IP space,
> I think it's a lot more likely that we're going to see ISPs
> offering IP space as a standalone monthly service.
> This will cause deaggregation.
> This is possible already, with no policy changes.
> I'd actually be surprised if it's not happening already for
> networks that were denied by their RIR.
> -- Kevin
> 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:
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML