[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy ? Revised andforwarded to the Board

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon May 4 15:41:52 EDT 2009


  IN 8.3:

"... Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need
for such resources, AS A SINGLE AGGREGATE..."

So yes, I quite believe that your statement that

 "own personal view on 
 how this would work prior to finding this out was if Suzie couldn't
 receive Billy's /16 for any reason, Billy would retain the /16."

is how MOST PEOPLE simply reading this policy proposal would interpret it.

2008-6 specificed exact match, also.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 12:00 PM
> To: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy 
> ? Revised andforwarded to the Board
> In a message written on Mon, May 04, 2009 at 12:21:01PM 
> -0400, Member Services wrote:
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 29 April 2009 and decided to 
> > send a revised version of 2009-1 to the Board for their 
> consideration:
> This policy isn't in "last-call" per se, but given the PDP 
> process I feel this is the only appropriate time for me to 
> make these remarks.
> I am a member of the Advisory Council, speaking only for myself.
> During the various reviews and discussions the Advisory 
> Council performs after the meeting a particular aspect of 
> this policy was brought to (most of?) the AC's attention.  I 
> would like to bring it to the community's attention as well.  
> I did not write notes on this at the time, so I am doing this 
> from memory.  If I get it wrong, I hope someone corrects me.
> Billy has a /16, and he's using it for dial up services which 
> is not paying the bills anymore.
> Suzie wants a /16 for her hot new social networking experiment.
> Billy and Suzie find each other and agree to transfer Billy's 
> /16 to Suzie under the result of 2008-6 + 2009-1.
> Billy goes to ARIN and says "Here's a /16, please give it to Suzie."
> Suzie goes to ARIN and says, "I'm here for Billy's /16".  In 
> the process, ARIN checks Suzie's justification, and realizes 
> Suzie can only justify a /18.
> My understanding of the current interpretation of 2008-6 + 
> 2009-1 is that ARIN would give Suzie a /18, and keep a /18 
> and /17 in the free pool.
> Billy has given up his /16, and Suzie only got a /18 of it.
> This ends up being an artifact of the legal requirement that 
> transfers must occur through ARIN.  My own personal view on 
> how this would work prior to finding this out was if Suzie 
> couldn't receive Billy's
> /16 for any reason, Billy would retain the /16.  Thus my 
> surprise, and I'm wondering if this isn't a surprise for 
> others in the community.
> The recommended "fix", is that Suzie will be able to 
> "pre-qualify", that is go to ARIN with all of her paperwork 
> and get approved for a /18 before Billy and Suzie do a deal, 
> so Suzie knows this will not happen.
> I think this ends up being bad for three distinct reasons:
> Technically:
>   This causes deaggregation.  In the example given a /16 was 
> turned into
>   a /17 and two /18's.  However, because a /17 and /18 are both now in
>   the free pool they may be further subdivided into /20's (or smaller,
>   in some cases).
> Business:
>   It is likely Billy and Suzie exchanged something of value 
> during this
>   transaction to make it happen.  Suzie has now "overpaid" 
> for her /18,
>   and is likely to demand a refund from Billy, or challenge ARIN's
>   stance she can only justify a /18, or both.  Billy, of course, isn't
>   going to want to give a refund as he is out the entire /16, 
> but he may
>   also be unhappy at ARIN for only approving her for a /18.  It sounds
>   like a good way to get all the parties in a transaction unhappy.
>   But also, it opens up an interesting fraud.  Alice could go to Billy
>   and offer to buy the /16 for a hundred million dollars.  Billy gets
>   so excited over the idea of retiring from the dial up business that
>   he takes the deal.  Alice gives him a fake check, and Billy 
> fills out
>   the ARIN paperwork.
>   But you see, it is a fake check, and Alice had no intention of ever
>   justifying the addresses to ARIN.  Billy figures out two weeks later
>   the check is fake from the bank, but he's already released 
> the addresses
>   to ARIN and can't get them back.  What's Alice's motivation?  Well,
>   her alter-ego Janice is sitting near the front of the line of folks
>   waiting for space to end up in the free pool.  Good for her, a /16
>   just showed up.
>   But really this is all added risk, and what business wants to
>   participate in a system with extra risk?
> Politically:
>   This interpretation of the policy is likely to affect the most
>   vulnerable the most.  The savvy folks who are doing all sorts of
>   transfers are reading this post on PPML now, and will understand
>   the pitfalls of the system and work around these issues by doing
>   things like prequalifing.
>   This issue is much more likely to trip up the "one time" casual
>   transferor or transferee who last delt with ARIN in 1999 and
>   doesn't do this as a day job anymore.  They are the ones who will
>   accidently encounter this situation.
> Personally, I think ARIN should not let this happen.  The 
> simplest fix I have come up with is to require Suzie to fill 
> out the recipient paperwork first.  Billy should not be able 
> to designate a recipient without having some assurance that 
> end of the transaction is already approved from ARIN.  This 
> could be as simple as Suzie giving Billy the ticket number 
> under which Suzie was approved, and Billy having to provide 
> that ticket number to release resources.  In this way an 
> exact match could be insured, eliminating all of the problems 
> listed above.
> The AC obviously moved this proposal on; so this was not seen 
> as a show-stopper issue by the majority of the AC.  At a 
> minimum, I wanted to get the issue out to the community so if 
> nothing is changed the community is aware of the issue and 
> will be able to avoid it.
> I would hope this would end up documented on the ARIN web 
> site in fairly clear language as well; but given the 
> accelerated timetable for this proposal I didn't want to wait 
> for that to occur first.
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list