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

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Wed Feb 11 18:43:13 EST 2009


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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090211/35f57135/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list