[arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers

[John Santos]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Kargel [mailto:kkargel at polartel.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 5:36 AM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; ARIN PPML
> > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 7:06 PM
> > > To: Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:30 PM
> > > > To: ARIN PPML
> > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 4:18 PM
> > > > > To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > > > Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; Kevin Kargel; 'ARIN PPML'
> > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Alternative to arbitrary transfers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see these alternatives in any way as creating 
> > a transfer 
> > > > > > market - yet I see them as being able to generate 
> > reusable IPv4.
> > > > > > I would certainly like to have ARIN give them a try and
> > > > prove they
> > > > > > DON'T work before embarking on a transfer program.
> > > > >
> > > > > The downside is that ARIN becomes even more the bad guy.
> > > > >
> > > > > A transfer system could avoid all that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesnt mean I dont personally think all your ideas are
> > > > inevitable in
> > > > > one shape or another.
> > > >
> > > > OK, brainstorming more here..
> > > >
> > > > How about if:
> > > >
> > > > 1. IP holder "A" decides it wants to relinquish some IP's 
> > and would 
> > > > like some remuneration..
> > > 
> > > Right here is the problem.
> > > 
> > > Holder A has his IP numbers purely due to his requesting 
> > the numbers 
> > > on the basis of need.  In other words, the numbers were 
> > never "his" to 
> > > give.  He's "renting" the use of them, just like you would 
> > rent a car.  
> > > We all would like renumeration for returning our rental cars, but 
> > > that's not what we agreed to when we rented the car.
> > 
> > I don't think this is necessarily the case, especially as it 
> > pertains to legacy IP's, where they are not renting the car, 
> > but someone gave them the care to use for as long as they 
> > wanted free of charge.
> > 
> 
> By definition, legacy holders never requested IP addresses on
> the basis of need.  
> 
> Ted
> 

Not true.  The definition of "need" may have been less formalized,
and we didn't get them from ARIN, but we definitely needed to tell
Network Solutions how many hosts we had and our growth projections
for the next 5 years.

Also, Section 7 of the form said "Unless a strong and convincing
reason is presented, the network (if it qualifies at all) will
be assigned a Class C network number."

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