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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon May 4 17:49:27 EDT 2009


I feel that a 3-year sunset would be bad policy given the immediate  
imlementation of 2008-6. I think 5 years, or 3 years after IANA  
exhaustion, would be appropriate, but I feel that would be best  
discussed as a normal policy proposal. Anyone is welcome to introduce  
such a policy if you think it's important. It would most likely be on  
the agenda this fall along with 2009-1.


On May 4, 2009, at 2:40 PM, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> AC had no need to make further policy to deal with the impact since  
> 2008-6 had an
> automatic sunset.  The entire point of the sunset in 2008-6 was to  
> see what the
> unintended consequences would be and the only way to find them out  
> was to
> implement the policy and see what happened.  I think most people  
> expected that
> after a year or so of 2008-6 that, armed with the knowledge learned  
> from the
> experiment, we would write a much more comprehensive policy that would
> supersede 2008-6.  The sunset was a deadline that guaranteed this  
> would
> happen.
> Ted
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]  
> On Behalf Of John Sweeting
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 12:28 PM
> To: Leo Bicknell; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy ?  
> Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> A few more bits of information. One reason that the AC moved this  
> proposal forward was that 2008-6 was already approved and set to be  
> implemented on June 1 so the issue was already there. I believe it  
> was accepted that the AC would make further review and come up with  
> a proposal that would deal with this impact. Also a point to note is  
> that this policy    must be recertified at the next Public Policy  
> Meeting since it went through the Emergency Policy process.
> On 5/4/09 3:00 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> P Go Green! Print this email only when necessary. Thank you for  
> helping Time Warner Cable be environmentally responsible.
> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
> Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
> or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail
> is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents
> of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any
> copy of this E-mail and any printout.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090504/e716fb0f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list