[arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Sep 29 19:41:08 EDT 2008


Bill,
 
The URL would be helpful:
 
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html
 
The problem is the line:  "transfer of ARIN IPv4 addresses between two
entities in the ARIN region, without the active involvement of ARIN as an
intermediary, will be considered legitimate"
 
  Have you ever stood in line for movie tickets?  I'm sure you have.
 
  When your standing there and there's 50 people in front of you, and
someone walks up and wants
to "take cuts" in front of the 3rd guy in line, the 3rd guy in line is not
going to let him unless he
gets paid.
 
  And everyone else waiting in line behind the 3rd guy ISN'T going to be
paid by the guy
taking "cuts" in front of the 3rd guy.  Naturally they are going to be a
little hot under the
collar.
 
This is a market.  You can play all the semantic games you want in the
policy proposal,
it's still a market.
 
After the very last IPV4 block is assigned from ARIN, the next day there may
be someone who
stops paying their bill, and their block goes back to ARIN.  ARIN will then
reassign it to the next
person who had put in a request for IPv4 numbers. 
 
IPv4 runout is more correctly defined as the day that the demand for IPv4
exceeds the supply.
But there will still be IPv4 handed out after that day.
 
This transfer proposal allows deep pockets to "cut" in front of that line,
post-runout.  Is that
fair to everyone else who is trying to wait patiently in line for numbering?
 
Imagine that movie ticket line if everyone was paying everyone else for a
chance to be the 3rd
guy in line.
 
It would resemble your typical line for something in Italy since the
Italians have no concept of
a queue, any time that tickets or anything restricted goes on sale there,
there's a mad rush
and everyone piles on, shoving to get to the front.
 
 
Ted
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu] 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:59 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; David Williamson; Kevin Kargel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4
Addresses



I would like to remind everyone that 2008-6 has as rationale....
Rationale:

In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing
supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN
resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of
documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be
implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of
need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources
during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is not
intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not introduce or
condone the monetization of address resources or a view of addresses as
property. It does recognize that organizations making available unused or no
longer needed address resources may incur certain costs that might be
compensated by those acquiring the resources. This policy is intended to be
transient and light-weight and does not encourage a sustained or continuing
role for IPv4, but rather helps to mitigate a transitional crisis that may
emerge while the industry adopts IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation
of ARIN's Board of Trustees.

.....Creating a liberalized transfer policy is not the same as encouraging
the buying and selling of IP address resources.




-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 4:54 PM
To: 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4
Addresses



David and Bill Darte,

  I agree with Kevin and Michael, I am against paying for numbering
transfers.
However I will make the observation that I think David is correct that this
will
happen even if we don't want it to, and it will be black market.  HOWEVER
the point that seems to be missed is that if it does go black market, that
it WON'T HAPPEN until IPv4 runout actually occurs.

  Now is not the time to implement legalized transfers based on money
because if we do allow them or put language into the NPRM at this time
to permit them in the future, we are instantly creating business
justification
for investment in holding companies that do nothing other than lie, cheat
and
steal as much IPv4 as they can get BEFORE runout.  Meaning you will see a
flood
of ficticious requests for IPv4 numbering go into the RIR's pre-runout,
causing
runout to happen that much faster.

  I would prefer to wait until AFTER IPv4 runout, when there is actual
evidence
of black-market IPv4 transfers, THEN implement legalization.  Discuss it all
you want, but DON'T IMPLEMENT ANYTHING OF THE SORT AT THIS TIME.

  This policy is basically ASSUMING that unauthorized transfers are going to
happen and we need to regulate them now.  While we can suspect that they
will happen, and have a very STRONG guess that they will happen, suspicions
and strong guesses are NOT GROUNDS for policy.  With the upcoming POC
cleanup
proposals, we have PROOF that we have stale data in there due to the
number of Bitnet mail addresses discovered, thus policy is called for.  What
PROOF is there that money for IPv4 transfers at this time will help
anything?

  Has anyone ever bothered SURVEYING the existing
IPv4 holders to find out what percentage would even CONSIDER renumbering
should an IPv4 market appear?  And at what price point?

  The ONLY USE that liberalized transfer RIGHT NOW are for people who
are PLANNING on hoarding and going into business as IPv4 brokers.  They
are of no use to anyone else when ARIN still has IPv4 to hand out.

  We have enough work with making policy for things that we KNOW ARE
HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW.  For example, in the past some have asserted in this forum that
some of Dean Anderson's IP addresses are hijacked.  Has anything
been done to even investigate this?  And if it was investigated and
discovered
to be true, what mechanism exists to get them back?  Nothing!  THERE is
where
the policy blanks are that need filling in.

  We also have assertions that a number of IPv4 legacy blocks are
abandonded.  And
we have 2 proposals (mine one) that are tentative steps to discovering which
one of those blocks ARE abandonded.  We will need more policy and more
discussion
to work out a mechanism for ARIN to define abandonded legacy blocks and take
them
back.  Yet ANOTHER policy blank.

  I think it would be more fruitful to worry about making policy for
something
that is a problem right now, than for a problem we think we might possibly
have
a few years down the road.  It might be that in the process of cleaning up
messes like abandonded IPv4 that we will find that we have a lot more IPv4
than
anyone thought.

Ted

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080929/319bdf76/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list