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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu May 5 17:40:15 EDT 2011

On May 5, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/5/2011 11:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If you can somehow convince me that more open transfer policies
>> would reduce, rather than inflict pain upon the community, then, I
>> would support them.
> This particular policy proposal reduces the pain on recent and new entrants in exchange for what might be a very slight additional pain (in that the recent and new entrants would be bidding against them) on the existing holders of IPv4 space who might need more.
I am not convinced this is entirely accurate, but, I can at least see why
you believe it to be true.

> I'm concerned that when you say "the community" you mean "people who've had IPv4 space for a long time" or even "ISP members of ARIN".
I assure you that is not the case. When I say "the community" I do literally mean anyone who has or needs an address.

However, I do give greater weight to present need than to future theoretical need. This policy proposal would reverse that weighting.

> Note that even concerns about routing table size increases (which this policy either won't affect or will actually cause reductions by reducing the number of transfers needed by a new or existing entrant) are really a pain experienced primarily by long-time ISP members (who have more routers holding full tables)... and so any talk about how routing table size increases hurt "the community" clearly shows this bias.

Generally, I consider this particular proposal to be mostly routing-table neutral. My comments about routing table
size impacts have been related to the free-market argument that has gotten conflated in this subject thread.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list