[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Feb 11 19:50:38 EST 2009

  Obviously the author was hoping that he wouldn't have to explain himself.
  Which is precisely why the proposal should have ZERO support.
  The policy proposal process is supposed to be an open process.  What part
of it did the author think wasn't?


From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Chris Malayter
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:38 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal:
ProtectiveUsageTransferPolicyforIPv4 Address



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,








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

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

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

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

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,



They should immediately request their micro allocations and when they get

commence renumbering.





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.






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.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090211/65ba25f4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list