[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Kevin Day
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:06 AM
> To: Jo Rhett
> Cc: 'arin ppml'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation 
> in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?"
> 

We ARE a colo provider (among other things)  We HAVE an unused /23 (among
our other assignments).  If you came to us and asked this I would say
"why would we rent you the /23 for less money than we can make by renting
out our racks, power, connectivity + the /23 to some other customer?"

> 
> 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.  

It can't except that it's stupid business.  Fundamentally, all of
us Internet Service Providers are in this business for the money, right?
Well, if we own the infrastructure to justify having the numbers in
the first place, we are going to make more money using those numbers
for selling that infrastructure, than if we just sell those numbers.

You could take your broken car to an auto mechanic, for example,
and ask him "how much is it going to cost me for you to diagnose
the problem in my car so that I can go fix it myself"  If this
auto mechanic is worth his salt, he's going to be a good enough
businessman to simply tell you that he would be willing to look at
it and tell you how much it will cost to fix - but he's not going to
tell you what is broken and exactly how to fix it.  If he was actually
willing to diagnose it and tell you exactly how to fix it, he would
be a pretty poor mechanic in which case his advice wouldn't be worth
what it cost to start with.

What your talking about is ONLY applicable to ISP's or colo providers who
have far MORE numbers than they can use - and that's a violation of the
RSA in which case ARIN can take the numbers away, or to legacy holders
who it's been said many times on the list, that there's too few resources
tied up in the legacy holders for them selling them off to make any
significant difference in IPv4 runout.

Ted