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

[Kevin - Your.Org]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> 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?"
>
> Aside from the provider's obvious problem with their next round of  
> ARIN justification?
>

First, I'm only seeing this happening after v4 is exhausted, so I'm  
not sure some organizations really care about having to justify space  
again. v4 has run out, and the /32 they have will probably last them  
forever.

Second, if done "by the books" why would there be a problem? I'm not  
talking about companies hiding this... The customer would have to  
properly justify the space being used SOMEWHERE, just not necessarily  
within the walls of that ISP's datacenter. Imagine a scenario like  
William Herrin brought up ( http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-July/008275.html 
  ). Fully document this like it were an in-house customer, they're  
just not using you for transit or rack space. I don't think it's  
right, but I also don't see how it violates any policy.

> This is a case of trying to multihome with PA space except that you  
> (in theory) would not be buying connectivity to them.  My guess is  
> that in practice, they'd designate a port for you and simply not  
> turn it up -- and make your bill the same as if you were using them  
> and the entire exercise pointless.  If you're stuck with all the  
> downsides of PA multihoming, you might as well have connectivity to  
> that provider and at least having things mostly work most of the  
> time...
>

Why would they have to do that? If an ISP in South Africa lucks out  
with AFRINIC's expected "last to run out" place in v4 and gets a ton  
of space... I'm sure there will be people desperate enough for v4  
space at some point to pay them enough to be worth doing. As long as  
they're making the same amount in profit at the end of the month, not  
having to worry about SLAs or other bandwidth issues might make it  
preferable to selling bandwidth.

If v4 demand gets as bad as I'm fearing after exhaustion, I don't  
doubt that people will be offering more money for v4 space than what  
some colo companies are making off their traditional products.

>
> You can bet if I'm paying someone for space under your model, I'd  
> have the contract written so that they couldn't take it back.
>
> Also, the concept of folks with "excess" space is one of several  
> reasons for 2007-14.  If that passes, expect that supply to diminish  
> quickly, at least the non-legacy parts of it.

I think if anything, 2007-14 is going to push MORE people into doing  
this. If I'm sitting on unused space right now and I want to keep it  
or monetize it, the first thing I'll do is find "customers" I can SWIP  
it to, so that it no longer is "unused". Fully justified, documented  
customers that have given us network diagrams and planned use  
documents. They just aren't buying transit from us.


And just to try to further emphasize this since s couple of off-list  
replies have seemed to misunderstand this... I'm not going to do this  
myself, I'm playing devil's advocate by bringing this up because I'm  
concerned others will. I'm not sitting on unused space, and wouldn't  
do this even if I was.

-- Kevin