[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

[David Farmer]

On 5/2/11 22:47 CDT, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On May 2, 2011, at 8:25 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2011 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On May 2, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/2011 6:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>> On May 2, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you qualify for an 8.3 transfer there is NO reason that transfer should fall under the 3-month rules, which right now, in many cases, it does... without a change like the one I have proposed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please cite such a case because as it currently stands, I don't believe that to be
>>>>> accurate.
>>>>>
>>>> A. My hypothetical ISP provides service to a small town. I presently get two /24s of IPv4 space from my upstream provider and I'm using them at about 85%. ARIN has run completely out of addresses. A benefactor arrives and offers to transfer a /22 to me and pay for me to multihome.
>>>>
>>>> I attempt to use 4.2.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs, Multihomed) for my justification. I need to demonstrate that I am efficiently using the two /24s. Done. I comply with 4.2.2.2.1 (SWIP). I attempt to comply with 4.2.2.2.2, but my growth shows that I won't really need more than a /23 for about 7 months. Transfer would be denied because 4.2.2.2.2 has a three month rule (as I claimed above). Benefactor takes his space elsewhere, and I lose out.
>>>>
>>> I'm not seeing the problem. You wouldn't have gotten the space from ARIN before runout, I don't see why you
>>> should get it now from a transfer.
>>
>> Because post-runout is a different world. Pre-runout I get 3 months of space, I use it, I go back to ARIN, I get 3 more months, I use it, I go back to ARIN and this time I get a whole year.
>>
> And you can do that with the market as well.

Owen,

The availability of space in 3-months could be completely different at 
that time then now, in a market-like situation for address space why 
should a new ISP not be able to compete on equal footing with an 
established ISP.  I don't buy the nothing should change argument, there 
are a number of issues we probably should reconsider when you have to 
compete in a market-like situation for addresses as opposed to having an 
IANA free pool.

I'm not convinced that we should abandon a needs basis, but we do need 
to reevaluate things and make sure the needs basis we had when there was 
an IANA free pool is still valid when you are competing in a market-like 
situation for addresses.

I think it is reasonable to reconsider slow-start and other rules for 
new ISPs in a world where there isn't an IANA free pool.  Furthermore, 
I'm worried that if we are not willing to discuss adjusting a few 
reasonable things it only strengthens the calls for completely 
abandoning a needs basis.

If we are not going to let new ISPs compete on an equal footing then 
maybe we need an additional reservation for them to provide them with 
addresses until they can compete on an equal footing.  However, at this 
point I think it is just easier to relax slow-start and other requirements.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================