[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Scott Leibrand]

What if... <idea type=crazy> we simply asked EP.net to trade in their 
current IX-assigned space for new space, converted the returned EP.net 
space to critical infrastructure microallocation space, and convert all 
EP-IX reassignments to direct PI critical infrastructure assignments. 
</idea>

This would definitely be something we could do through the policy 
process, but it might be a way for ARIN to solve this problem in a way 
that makes everyone happy, and requires the minimum disruption possible...

-Scott

Chris Malayter wrote:
> 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."
>
>