[arin-ppml] Fw: Accusation of fundamental, conflictofinterest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Ray Hunter]

Again I assert my neutrality, and just want to point out some facts and 
interpretations and explore possibilities for your consideration.

There were approx 2^32 IPv4 addresses allocated on as needed basis (give 
or take a few blocks left over), out of which 41% went to the US 
according to the stats I've seen from 
http://www.bgpexpert.com/addressespercountry.php = 1760936591 or so 
addresses. That's about a /2 in round numbers.

I'm not doubting that there may been some IPv4 ranges that have been 
exchanged for cash.

What I question is how many, whether this is significant, and whether 
they should be considered as the norm or as exceptions.

I've seen 10 documented transfers (Statistics regarding NRPM 8.3 
Transfers to date). Maybe 11 now. Hardly a large sample.

> > Distribution of IPv4 Resources transferred:

>>  
>>      1  /17
>>      3  /20s
>>      1  /21
>>      1  /23
>>  49  /24s

= 60160 addresses. Certainly less than a /16. if I've done my maths 
right that's approx 0.0034% of the address space in the US.

Even if you add in the Microsoft transfer (rumored to be 666K addresses) 
as a done deal, it's still a miniscule amount compared to the ARIN 
community as a whole.

The combined total that I know of is also still much smaller than the 
current proposed /10 for NAT444 cgn use, again which would be given on 
an "as-needed" basis "free of charge" (although I've registered my 
personal objection to this proposed allocation, I'll respect the 
decision of ARIN, which is what being on a consensus based Internet is 
all about)

Not sure therefore how you can claim that the majority view of "most 
people" is that these transactions are and should be the norm. I don't 
make any such claim that I speak on behalf of the majority, but the 
stats are pretty one sided so far, and suggests that they are exceptions.

I don't think a lot of people have properly thought through the 
consequences of equating or confusing ownership with allocation and 
registration.

Here's a theoretical scenario, based on reality. I have a fixed /32 
allocated from my ISP for business use. I think I'm gonna ask a fortune 
if they ever want that back (I never signed any contract to the contrary 
as far as I'm concerned, and I've registered that address for use on my 
website domain in DNS, which is also registered in whois). They better 
also not prevent me from routing my /32 into BGP because that would 
probably be denying my right to free trade.

"What utter tosh" you'd say (or perhaps something stronger). And rightly so.

But what's the difference between my allocation from my ISP, and the 
ISP's allocation from the RIR, and the RIR's allocation from ICANN?

We live on a consensus based Internet. I might yet be surprised and see 
one or more network operators call foul on a deal like one we've 
recently observed, consensus breaks down, and some network operators 
refuse to route the address blocks that have been sold on a commercial 
basis (maybe the research nets, or competitor networks, I don't know), 
just like some football clubs block a few tickets that are known to have 
been sold on the black market at inflated prices. What happens then? 
It'll be a mess.

Good luck with your suggestions on improving ARIN policies. I think 
everyone will welcome and appreciate new and improved policy if they see 
that there is a clear consensus that the changes will benefit the ARIN 
community.

best regards,
RayH


Martin Hannigan wrote:
> We have seen legacy IPv4 addresses space exchange hands for cash.
> That's not in question (for most people) and I'm not sure why you
> think that it may be.
>