[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

[Cliff Bedore]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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...
>   

Or maybe the American entrepreneurial spirit will revive itself and one 
of those who are concerned/involved will buy the company and solve the 
problem.  This doesn't strike me as a policy issue but a business 
decision.  I know none of the parties involved but this seems to me to 
be more bailout-itis syndrome than an ARIN issue.

Cliff
> -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."
>>
>>   
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>