[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 31, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

>>> From Prop-151:
>> 
>> The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
>> 
>> - The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
>> 
>> - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
>>   to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
>>   IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
>>   to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
>>   space held, including all transferred resources.
>> 
>> - If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
>>   of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
>>   demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
>>   which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For some people who crave more regulation, I suppose fewer regulations is equal to abandoning all regulation.
>> 
> 
> If they are required to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address space held, including all transferred resources, then, what is the point of removing the needs basis from the transfer? Why let them transfer it only to have it revoked later if they can't account for efficient utilization?
> 
> Owen
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> The idea is that if you have purchased IP addresses through 8.3 that if you then go to ARIN for an allocation *from the free pool* that ARIN can use their existing allocation policies.
> I have always seen a difference between free pool addresses and transferred addresses. I think proper stewardship of free pool addresses requires the kinds of justifications already present in policy.
> 

You have a vivid imagination, IMHO. You are seeing a difference where, as near as I can tell, none exists.

By the way, APNIC reached consensus on proposal 096 yesterday, so, there is no longer ANY RIR which supports the abandonment of needs basis in transfers.

> So what I wanted was to protect the free pool addresses by ensuring ARIN could take into account all the addresses the entity owns. In other words if they go back to ARIN for more addresses, ARIN can ask them to first utilize the addresses they purchased in the transfer market. If they have utilized them to the normal amounts, ARIN can give them addresses from the free pool.
> 

Then you are NOT requiring the recipient of the transferred resources to be subject to current ARIN policies, in specific you must disable section 12 from affecting transferred resources to meet the statement you made above.

> Anyway that was my intention and if it wasn't clear, that's an example of the continued work on the text of the proposal which the AC is suggesting, I suppose.
> And I welcome any input on making that clearer.
> 

Your statements above distort the facts by ignoring certain details. As such, it was my intent to call attention to this misinformation. Sorry if I was not clear. You have, however, now clarified the details so that at least people can view this in the context of its actual effect. I am not accusing you of an intentional distortion of the facts. I think it was an honest oversight. Nonetheless, I think it is important to recognize that your policy does not allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

> I don't think there will be that much action on the transfer market until the free pool depletes, and not too much overlap where companies will engage BOTH in the transfer market and in free pool allocations.
> 

Correct. This is one of the primary reasons I feel it is vital to preserve needs-basis even after the free pool is depleted rather than have it become an automatic trigger for abandoning all regulation of the market just as the market gets going in earnest (which is, IMHO, the effect of your proposal).

Owen