[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

Chris Malayter cmalayter at switchanddata.com
Wed Feb 11 14:38:18 EST 2009


Ted,

 

I'm not really sure that playing the name that provider game is going to
achieve anything.  

 

I can tell you that this is not a single special interest and affects
over a dozen IX's.  There may only be one IX publicly discussing the
issue, but rest assured that a lot of the others know about this and are
concerned.

 

I'm not privy to the discussions that have occurred between the IX's and
the provider in question.  I am hoping that there have been some, and
that some diplomacy has been attempted.  Regardless of if contact has
been made or not, the fact remains that the possibility I discussed in
my last post certainly exists.  

 

To clarify, you are correct, to my knowledge no IX  has been notified to
vacate the space at this point.  To Leo's point, the IX's have 10 months
and probably do have enough time to request, receive and renumber into a
PI from ARIN and other RR's.  

 

I think what the author was trying to do was to bring light to the
situation without turning this into a discussion about a particular
corporation, and in fact was trying to bring light to, this COULD
happen.  If the community does not want to have a policy in place to
protect people from this happening, that's one choice, I think he was
hoping for the alternative.

 

Speaking for myself,

 

-Chris

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:21 PM
To: Chris Malayter; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective
UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

 

Which provider?

 

Unless your going to name names, I'm not even going to consider looking
at this.

The entire thing smacks of trying to shove something through to benefit
a 

single special interest, with zero explanations as to why it's being
done.

 

If these IX's had contacted each other and contacted this alleged
provider

and attempted to work something out, and been rebuffed, and then
contacted

ARIN and ARIN attempted to mediate something, and once more was

rebuffed, THEN I would be willing to support something like this.  But
so far

no evidence has been presented that anyone tried diplomacy first, before

hauling out the munitions and attempting to shoot people with the big
guns.

 

Since there has been no cease and desist order issued, and as you say
the IX's

know they are eligible to request direct allocations, then in my opinion
if the IX's

are worried about some future cease and desist order that may or may not
happen,

and they are unwilling to try talking first, and unwilling to explain to
the

community here who the players are and get this problem out in the open,

then SCREW THEM.

 

They should immediately request their micro allocations and when they
get them,

commence renumbering.

 

Ted

	 

	
________________________________


	From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
[mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Malayter
	Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:26 PM
	To: arin-ppml at arin.net
	Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective
UsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

	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/20090211/52e30bbe/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list