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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 6, 2011, at 7:51 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:

> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:34 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On May 6, 2011, at 9:58 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>> 
>>> Let's refer to this chart:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DiffusionOfInnovation.png . By this
>>> assertion, ~50% of resource holders are going to be late to adopt and
>>> will inevitably be hurt by IPv4 policies that are in place today.
>> 
>> To the extent that any of the those parties need resources, that's
>> provided by having a specified transfer policy (which is already
>> present in the ARIN region).  Can you better characterize how they
>> will be "hurt" by present policies?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> /John
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> ARIN
>> 
>> 
> 
> John,
> 
> I was referring to the current limitations of 12 month supply,
> justified need, and so forth. In contrast, the /32 we were recently
> issued is more like a 12 year supply. Once we fully migrate to IPv6 we
> most likely will never have to come back to ARIN for more resources,
> at least not in the foreseeable future.
> 
Interesting... Even with IPv6 being a limited deployment until very
recently (limited by customer demand, not by our network),
HE has consumed our /32 to the point of an HD ratio well
above 1.0 in less than 10 years.

> Unfortunately, migrating to IPv6 is very costly. I'm spending
> thousands in engineering time migrating our network to dual stack,
> carriers don't have sufficient experience in IPv6 to avoid annoying
> problems, and many vendors don't have IPv6 support, yet. We have some
> hardware that we will not be able to use on our v6 net and even cPanel
> doesn't have IPv6 support, yet.
> 
Perhaps you should be talking to better carriers. There are some
with significant experience and very few annoying problems.

> Once we stop breathing the IPv6 fumes the reality sets in that 4-to-6
> migration will continue to be a long and painful process. In the near
> term, there will be companies who wish to secure enough IPv4 resources
> to support not only current, but future need. Conservation measures in
> place right now make this more difficult. Prop-147 should help relieve
> some pressure, especially if my recommendation to extend need to 36
> months is implemented. Ultimately, allowing resource holders to opt
> out of the current system and freely exchange resources, much like
> premium domain names, would go even further to not only solve this
> issue but to make IPv6 look way more attractive.
> 
We found that the further along the process we got, the less painful
it became. Today, it's pretty painless.

> If ARIN declines to allow justification-less transfers, would be
> resource vendors will stay on the black market. I hear a lot of gouge
> in C-squad circles about how acquisitions are being conducted just to
> conduct illicit transfers of /17 - /20 allocations. The justifications
> that are being used to hold on to resources seem really loose. I made
> one fraud report last year and it was closed without action. I won't
> criticize ARIN for that action; I merely wish to point out that the
> black market and false resource justifications are alive and well.
> 
> We can eliminate the IP black market by allowing justification-less transfers.
> 
We could eliminate criminal murder by making murder legal, too.
I'm just not sure what the advantage is.

We could eliminate the crime of theft by simply making it legal
to steal. Again, I'm not seeing an advantage.

The argument that a black market can be eliminated by legitimizing
a market without rules  is just such a tautology.

Owen