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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2011, at 10:15 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> 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.
> 
That's true in the pre-runout world of today as well.

In three months it could go from available from RIR to not available from RIR.

We can agree to disagree, but, I think that slow start should still apply.

> 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 have considered the situation and I believe it to be still valid.

> 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.
> 
Post exhaustion, there is no such thing as a new IPv4 service on an equal
footing with established ones. Any attempt to create such a situation is
based in delusional optimism.

Once the RIRs run out, transfers are about limping existing uses of IPv4
along until they can make it to IPv6. Attempting to preserve capabilities
for new entrants to build IPv4 based infrastructures is both ill-advised
and unlikely to have the desired effect.

Owen