[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

Fri May 27 16:35:27 EDT 2011

On May 27, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Aaron Dudek wrote:

> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 00:09, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 26, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Aaron Dudek wrote:
>> 
>>> Currently the only way to transfer owner ship is through 8.2 Mergers
>>> and Acquisitions.
>>> Company A received an initial allocation. Company B received a
>>> significant allocation from Company A.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Company A goes out of business. There is no method for company B to
>>> take over the block from company A.
>> 
>> If company B has a large enough need to meet the criteria for a direct
>> assignment (I doubt they received an allocation as you describe),
>> then, why didn't they go to ARIN instead of Company A?
>> 
>> If they didn't meet and/or don't meet the criteria, then, why should they
>> be able to transfer a smaller netblock rather than renumber as an end-run
>> on policy?
> 
> Why are you assuming that they would get a smaller netblock? Why is
> that a bad thing?

If they don't fit in a smaller netblock, then, they were using Company A's
entire block, in which case, they qualify under policy to get their own
netblock, right? This would fit the first case above, rather than the
second.

> Renumbering is not easy even with ipv6.

True. So?

> Why are you assuming that they may not be able to meet the criteria
> now? How is this an
> end-run on polcy when they still have to meet the ARIN guidelines?

I am not. I listed too cases... Case one: IF THEY DO and explained
why this policy is unnecessary in that case. Case two: IF THEY DO NOT
and explained why this policy is unnecessary in that case.

> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I don't think that B's poor planning is something we should codify in
>> ARIN policy.
>> 
> 
> Polices change over time. What may have be forbidden before may now be
> allowed. There once
> was a time that end-users where not allowed to get IPv6 space and had
> to get it from the LIRs.
> That is not poor planning, just following policy has policy dictated
> at the time.
> 

True. However, the number of IPv6 assignments issued prior to this time
by LIRs was, uh, trivial and I suspect that the number of significant IPv6
deployments built prior to that was even smaller.

The simple approach would be to clean these up by getting and renumbering
into ARIN direct assignments. Policy even allows you to do this over a very
long time as things currently stand, assuming that your LIR continues to allow
you to use the space.

> The policy doesn't allow for clean ups of ipv6 whois allocations
> outside of mergers and acquisitions.

Sure it does.

Get your ARIN direct assignment and renumber.

Simple, really.

> There have been requests to do so, but since they are outside of 8.2,
> 8.3 doesn't allow for it.
> 

And it shouldn't. This would create significant cruft mixing assignment
and allocation spaces.

In addition, there would be other negative side effects of this proposed
policy, such as creating a potential market in IPv6 address space which
if current proposals are enacted could also result in an easy ability to do
end-runs on IP number resource policy through this process.

Owen

>>> Company A has to migrate to a larger block. There is no method for
>>> company B to take over the block from company A.
>>> 
>> 
>> Right. I think this falls into the same answers as above.
>> 
>>> These are just a couple of examples.
>>> ARIN still has the final say of any transfers as per the rest of 8.3
>>> as the "new owner" has to show need and justification just as before.
>>> 
>> 
>> ARIN policy has the final say. ARIN's ability to say no is limited to exactly
>> those things proscribed by policy, not even the ones obviously intended
>> to be proscribed by policy as recent experience has shown.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> Aaron
>>> 
>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:14, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On May 26, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Aaron Dudek wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Since we are discussing 8.3.
>>>>> I feel that there should be language to allow for transfers of IPv6.
>>>>> Currently there is no language to allow for transfers of IPv6 allocations.
>>>>> So essentially
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, there should not. The need to facilitate directed transfers
>>>> in IPv4 is strictly a result of the intersection of legacy addresses and
>>>> failure to have a strong mechanism for address policy with legacy
>>>> resources combined with the shortage of addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> Neither of these factors applies to IPv6 and such transfers have no
>>>> positive effect.
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4  and IPv6 number resources
>>>>> within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource
>>>>> holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified
>>>>> organizational recipient.......
>>>>> 
>>>>> The other option would to remove the version number and just leave IP number
>>>>> resources....
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Aaron Dudek
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 01:34, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 25, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't surprise me to see that we will disagree on this.
>>>>>>>>> Since you are opposed to needs-basis in general, I don't expect you to
>>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>>> the need to preserve it here or to agree with it.
>>>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Similarly, I don't expect you to entertain any logic that free markets
>>>>>>>> are beneficial. I suspect spending a lot of time in the Bay Area has
>>>>>>>> that effect.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think there are places where regulated free markets can be beneficial.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you can point to a single historical example of an unregulated free
>>>>>>> market that
>>>>>>> remained beneficial and unregulated for more than 5 years, I'll be
>>>>>>> surprised.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PPML
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 