[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Chris Malayter]

Leo,

I guess the way I look at it is that the provider in question has long
been (10 years+) a reliable broker of space for exchanges all over the
world.  All of the IX's in the space have been blindsided by the idea
that the space was now being shopped around for sale.  It would be the
equivalent of ARIN deciding to pull back all the micro allocations and
reuse them for something else.

The point I'm making is that this is a non-trivial issue.  There are,
from what I have been told, at least 40 or more IX's that are
potentially affected.  

Are there alternatives to a policy proposal, sure.  Are they the best
way to maintain stability?  I'd have to say no.  It's going to be a
rough few months if we have to renumber that many IX's globally, with a
bunch of them in the ARIN region.  

I certainly think that this deserves the ability to move forward.

-Chris




-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:43 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective
UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:13:51PM -0500, Martin
Hannigan wrote:
>    What does that (EP or S/D) have to do with anything?

Mr Malayter made the assertion that:  

In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris
Malayter wrote:
>    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.

Thus it is perfectly reasonable to quantify "a large number of          
IX's".  Since he works for Switch and Data, it seemed logical to        
begin the detective work with where their addressing blocks came
from, which whois quickly locates as EP.NET.

Mr Malayter further asserts that:

In a message written on Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:26:15AM -0500, Chris
Malayter wrote:
>    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.

If the "real issue" is that the "current provider was to serve a        
majority of the US IX's with a cease and desist order" then looking     
at how many folks get space from the "current provider" would be 
getting to the heart of the "real issue", now wouldn't it?  Since       
we know who that is, why don't we just look, rather than speaking       
in theoretical generalities?

This is in fact critical to evaluating the policy.  Knowing how         
many folks might be affected by a policy change is one of the first     
things to evaluate a policy.

This investigation has in fact been quite useful, as we now know if
there is any problem, it is a contractual problem between a company and
its outsourcer, and there are already three solutions available today:

1) Renegotiate the contract to provide stronger protections.

2) Find another outsourcer who can provide addresses.

3) Come to ARIN and use the Micro Allocation for critical infrastructure
   policy to obtain addresses directly from ARIN.

It appears the policy proposer would like a fourth option, of having
ARIN step in the middle.

To answer John Curran's question, "I am against the policy proposal as
it appears there are ample other avenues for the requester to get what
they want."

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/