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

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed May 6 15:57:11 EDT 2009


  All of that is fine with one problem and that is that these large
telecoms like Level 3 who had my name on a netblock SWIP for 4 years after
it was unused, are essentially committing fraud when they apply for
new IPv4 allocations, and use my name as part of their justification
that they need more IPv4.  Granted, it's not fraud from the perspective
that it meets a legal test for fraud - since there's a lack of intent, here.
But, morally it's fraud.

  Let me put it this way.  You and your wife are living your life,
saving money, having a good relationship otherwise.  You need a new
laptop and you tell your wife and she agrees and you go to the store
to buy one.   When you get to the store you discover your missing a
pen and paper so you dig through your glovebox to find one, and you
come across an envelope that you stuck in the car glovebox 4 years ago
before you were married, that has 5 100 dollar bills in it.  You
then remember the money is a leftover from a trip you took to Vegas
at that time and you just never put it back in the bank.

  You had already told your wife the new laptop would cost $800 and
she was OK with that.  But you realize now that with the $1300 that
you could get a much more expensive laptop that has a TV tuner and
blueray burner in it, plus a really cool video card that you can play
the latest Quake on.  You don't need these things but they would be
really fun addons to have.  Do you add the extra $500 to the money
you were going to spend on the laptop or not?

  You see, this is essentially the moral situation your laying out.
The morally right thing to do would be to call your wife from the
store and let her know what you found and ask if she didn't mind if
you spent the $500.  But what your advocating here in my view is
similar to the guy just buying the $1300 laptop and then saying
nothing about it, using the excuse that he "found" the IPv4 addresses
I mean $500 because he was housecleaning his network I mean car
glovebox.  Do you get what I'm saying?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:38 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer 
> Policy?Revisedandforwarded to the Board
> > My feeling has always been that talk of a transfer market is very 
> > misguided, that there's plenty of "mineable" IPv4 in allocations 
> > already made that have been abandonded, and our reclamation efforts 
> > should focus there first.
> Lots of that minable IPv4 is in the hands of the ISPs who 
> will need it. In other words, when some organization realizes 
> that they need more IPv4 addresses and ARIN can no longer 
> supply them, they will be able to invest the money into 
> mining their own supply rather than spending money on buying 
> addresses from someone else. Some of these minable addresses 
> might fall under the category that some people call 
> "hoarding" although I don't think that is a proper term for 
> it. But lots of them are perfectly legitimately held IP 
> addresses, for instance assignments to DHCP pools used by 
> broadband DSL customers.
> When the runout occurs, many companies will be able to 
> identify blocks of IPv4 internally, which do not supply as 
> much profit per IP address as another service which is short 
> of addresses.
> The "mining" activity is to either shut off less profitable 
> customers or to forcefully migrate them to IPv6 services. At 
> that point, the freed up IPv4 addresses can be repurposed.
> Also, most large telecoms companies have a problem with 
> cleaning up after customers are disconnected, or after they 
> upgrade to a service which requires a new circuit. Part of 
> that cleanup is to recover the unused IPv4 addresses. There 
> is not a lot of incenctive to do this cleanup today, but 
> there will be when ARIN runs out of IPv4. A company where I 
> used to work was spending over
> $2 million dollars per month on unused access lines because 
> of not cleaning up after disconnects.
> So, we don't need ARIN to organize any reclamation effort 
> because the organizations with the minable IPv4 addresses 
> will have plenty of incentive to do it themselves.
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list