[arin-ppml] Draft proposal that needs some wordsmithing

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Thu May 5 22:38:03 EDT 2011


Thanks for putting this together and floating it here for input, I
think that sharing proposals for feedback and input before officially
proposing them is the best way to end up with sound policy. That being
said, I still have major doubts about the utility and necessity of
removing the needs requirement from policy. I will admit that I am
quite a ways behind in PPML messages so my apologies if any of my
questions here have already been asked and answered.

Comments and questions below.


On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 14:43, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> 8. Rationale:
> Current ARIN policies relating to the registration of transfer of
> address holdings limit the eligibility of registration of transfers to
> those relating to mergers and acquisitions of entities that are
> administering an operational network, or to those who agree to
> sign either an RSA or LRSA with ARIN and subject the buyer
> to needs analysis and the seller to a potential ARIN audit.


> It is currently anticipated that the IPv4 unallocated address pool
> will be exhausted within a couple of years at ARIN, and earlier
> than that in other regions, and the  transition to IPv6-based service
> delivery
> is likely to take longer than the remaining period of unallocated
> address availability. Accordingly, it is likely that demand for IPv4
> addresses will continue beyond the time of unallocated address pool
> exhaustion, leading to a period of movement of IPv4 address blocks
> between address holders to meet such continuing demand for IPv4
> address blocks.

I'm still with you.

> The underlying proposition behind this policy proposal is that the
> registry of IPv4 addresses operated by ARIN is of general utility and
> value only while it accurately describes the current state of address
> distribution. If a class of address movement transactions are excluded
> from being entered in the registry, then the registry will have
> decreasing value to the broader community, and the integrity of the
> network itself is thereby compromised.  This proposal's central aim is
> to ensure the continuing utility and value of the ARIN address
> registry by allowing the registry to record transactions where IPv4
> addresses are transfered between ARIN account holders.

Here is where you lose me. The first two sentences are fundamentally
true and the third sentence is a valuable and noble goal. The piece of
the puzzle that I am still missing is this: Why would organizations
choose to "move addresses" in an excluded manner? A few facts that I
find important:

1) IPv4 addresses have value for Internet routing only if they are unique.
2) The best way to ensure uniqueness on this scale is to maintain a
public record or database of some form.
3) ARIN (and the other RIRs, in cooperation with the IANA) maintains
entries in such a database (plus a couple other services provided) for
a nominal fee.
4) Because spots in this database are limited, for at least the last
decade (it can be argued that this was true from the very beginning,
with increasing oversight over time), receiving a spot in this
database has required a justification of need. You've had to
demonstrate that you were actually going to use the spot that you
wanted to occupy to add value to the global network.
5) Completely new spots in the database (unused IPv4 addresses) are
about to run out.

Based on those facts, I end up with two questions:

1) How/why does fact number five change any of the preceding facts?
(i.e. Why should the realization of scarcity change our stewardship
behavior, behavior that was based on an understanding of scarcity?)
2) Why would any organization with need for unique IPv4 addresses
choose to not have those addresses recorded in the database which
guarantees their value in order to escape stating their need? (i.e.
What class of organization with legitimate need would be hurt by
having to demonstrate that need before receiving addresses?)

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 16:12, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
<massive snipping>
>  I don't believe speculators will make up a majority of the market
<more snipping>
> I just don't think the problem of hoarders is so great

Are you willing to bet the future of the Internet on those
assumptions? Do you have any evidence that might convince others to
make the same gamble?

> _______________________________________________
> 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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list