[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[John Santos]

This doesn't work.  You would either need to put your equipment on the
colo's premises (that's what "colo" means") or you would have to install
a circuit between the colo and your own premises.  No on is going to
route the colo's network to anywhere but the colo's network.

Sure, anyone with spare v4 address space could just become an ISP and
lease you "permanent" v4 addresses (permanent for as long as you and
the "ISP" maintain a business relationship and you pay your bill), but
they would have to set up their own network to reach you.

(I haven't read the 40 or so messages that have piled up today, I'm
sure someone else has already said the same thing.)

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Kevin Day wrote:

> 
> 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?"
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539