[arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar 18, 2009
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Mar 31 15:31:45 EDT 2009
I would not go that far right now.
I can forsee a time that there will be a lot of pressure on ARIN to
rejustify all IPv4 blocks.
I personally would not like having to do that, but OTOH our IPv4 holdings
are small and
it is not like it would take many weeks of effort. However I would fight
doing this if
the current situation with legacy holders essentially getting their IPv4
numbering for free
I think professionally that the industry would be damaged by being forced to
IPv4 holdings as it would encourage widespread fraudulent reporting, and it
ARIN in the position where they would be happy to have fraudulent reports
since it would
just allow them to pass the buck and go back to whatever was pressuring them
say "see, they say they have 100% utilization so prove they don't" It would
a lot of labor and money into existing IPv4 holdings which would be better
IPv6 transitioning efforts. And of course, once an org spends money on
existing IPv4 holdings they will want to get their money's worth out of the
labor so it
would strongly encourage continuation of IPv4.
>From a political viewpoint if ARIN cleans up things now, it will give them
they need later on to fight against ham-handed efforts by governments to
of IPv4. It's real difficult to argue there's a lot of unused IPv4 when
ARIN has a list of all
IPv4 holders that are current.
What I do think they need to do right now is verify what is documented. My
that if they start verification efforts now that by IPv4 runout date, they
will have completed
verification on everything larger than a /16 and my guess is that the major
political dollars and muscle to throw around, will not be interested in a
block of IPv4 that is smaller than that.
Almost certainly, the small fry (of which we are) will be begging for under
/16 and smaller
all the way down to /22's, /23's, /24's, for the next decade. But, the
small fry do not
have the political muscle and money to influence governments and seriously
the RIR system, and can thus be safely ignored.
I realize this is a cynical view but I'm speaking from what your typical
would be thinking, who doesn't know an IP address from a postal address. I
the people who really understand this are a lot more concerned with the rest
community. But I just see the amount of money flowing over the Internet
today, and I
think it is really naive to think that we will be able to fight against that
sort of influence
unless we have everything signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried,
subjected to public enquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for
three months and
recycled as firelighters.
From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 6:14 PM
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Lee Howard; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar
So do you think ARIN needs to ask for all address space to be re-justified,
documented and when there is obvious under-utilization they reclaim it?
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt
Sent: Mon 3/30/2009 7:38 PM
To: 'Lee Howard'; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and Mar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:07 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] clarification of Board actions Feb 2 and
> Mar 18, 2009
> Board has been concerned for some time that the lack of a
> liberalized transfer policy would create legal risk: that we
> had not provided a mechanism to improve the efficient
> utilization of previously-allocated resources, and that this
> risk was significant enough to jeopardize ARIN's ability to
> fulfill its stewardship mission.
I have been saying this same thing for years and this is
why I proposed the POC cleanup. HOWEVER it must be clear that
this statement presumes that the legal risk is created by
the lack of a liberalized transfer policy. This is a fundamentally
flawed argument. The legal risk is NOT created by this,
the legal risk is created by INSUFFICIENT utilization of
The fear argument goes something like this:
When IPv4 runs out some large cash-rich org will request a
block and be denied. That org will then spend it's money
lobbying it's nation's government that the RIR's know that
there's lots of available IPv4 tied up in old assignments that
aren't being used, and that because ARIN has the bulk of it,
and ARIN hasn't done enough to scavenge out this stale addressing,
that ARIN is no longer functioning, and that the U.N. needs
to assign a committee - like WIPO was done with the DNS
system - to interfere and take control of the assignment
mechanism away from ARIN.
ARIN will cease to exist and chaos will ensue. Previously signed
contracts will be voided out under the guise of an emergency. There
is plenty of legal precedent for this - for example, in the US a bankruptcy
court can wipe out contracts if it wants.
As a follower of politics, I personally think this argument
has a lot of validity. But the Board and ARIN staff and many
people are falling for the idea that the problem is in the
transfer policy. It IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN.
It is in operations - it is failure to properly document
use of IP addressing.
Any county government today has FAR BETTER documentation of
land deeds than ARIN has of orgs assigned to IP addressing.
And their taxation departments go to the utmost in finding
It is NOT necessary to create a buying-and-selling market of
IP numbers to obtain close to 100% use of routable IPv4. It
is merely necessary to prove that all assignable, routable IPv4
is in use on the Internet. Cleaning and grooming WHOIS is a
major first step.
IMHO what ARIN and the Board are attempting to do is take the
easy way out. They figure if they hang up a for-sale sign on
IP addressing that there's enough bottom-feeders and scavengers
out on the Internet who will be looking for a quick buck, who
will set themselves up as "brokers" of these IPv4 sales, that
if they end up getting sued, or if the United Nations decides
to get involved, that they can make the argument that since
a financial incentive now exists with this buying-and-selling market
to scavenge up old IPv4 addresses, obviously, there's no abandoned
IPv4 floating around on the Internet, because the scavengers
are out there fishing it out of the pond.
IMHO this is a very weak argument. It also assumes that
after the former-bottom-feeders, now IP-brokers
have finished cleaning out the IPv4 pool of usable IPv4, that
they will mildly go off into the sunset, and disappear. That
isn't what will happen. Instead these people will simply
move into the business of creating complex obfuscating
schemes to get portable IPv6 to people who do not and never will
meet the qualifications for their own addressing - and the number of
routes in the dfz will soar to immense levels.
It is like if the State of California decided that since they
can't document 10% of the current whereabouts of tax-dodging
landowners owning land in CA, that they should just declare that
any Realtor who thinks that a piece of land is abandoned
is now allowed to just sell it to the highest bidder - instead
of what they actually do, which is the state takes back ownership of the
property as a result of failure to pay taxes.
It is an utterly ridiculous argument when applied to most
scarce resources, and the reason some people are thinking
it has validity to IP addressing is simply because they aren't
very experienced with the messes that are created when trying to do this
kind of thing with public resources.
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML