[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Chris Malayter]

Hello all,

 

In an effort to add some clarification behind the policy proposal that
was submitted I will add the following. 

 

There are a large number of IX's in the North American region (as well
as other regions) that have address space allocated from a provider that
specializes in exchange allocations.

 

According to the current ARIN policy, we are all eligible to request
space as a direct allocation from ARIN.  That is not lost on the IX's
and they do completely understand that they are eligible for a direct
allocation.  

 

The real issue is that if the current provider was to serve a majority
of the US IX's with a cease and desist order from using the space at the
term of all of the existing contracts at the end of 2009 that would
force a massive renumber of most every IX in the North American region,
save one major IX.

 

The reason behind the policy proposal was to provide a method to allow
IX's 1) protection from having to renumber all of the IX's, or  2) to at
least let the IX's have enough time, before they are forced out of the
space, to have a smooth transition.

 

Moreover, if this happens to other "c(C)ritical i(I)nfrastructure"
corporations that happen to be in unique situations like the IX's there
would be a policy in place to offer some margin of time or protection to
the affected parties.

 

Speaking for myself not any company or agent.

 

-Chris

 

 

________________________________

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:26 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage
TransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

 

 

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:

In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500, Martin
Hannigan wrote:
>    Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and
>    unexpectedly.

I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy
style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further
that we were talking about above board transactions.  It seemed
likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be
approved until close to the free pool exhaustion.

If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to
address that than policy changes.



I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening
below board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom
of our failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the
reality of the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic
corruptness.

Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the
author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask
us to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect
party, can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal
it after the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are
required to be publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60
days prior to execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at
least some notice. Interesting transparency, to say the least.

Best,

-M<



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090211/66628061/attachment.htm>