[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue May 10 09:58:00 EDT 2011

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the feedback.

Since this point is germane to my proposal, could I ask for some status on 
the discussion that Bill Herrin and John Curran were having related to the 
potential for making some changes to the LRSA?

I will have to think about changing my proposal to require an agreement be 
signed by the receiving entity.
On the one hand, as I do support private registries, it would seem strange 
to me that a registry provides some service to somebody for free, and I 
would expect every registry to have some contract with its customers.
And I don't like the idea of separate classes of addresses, it is my desire 
to reconcile them under the same set of rules through voluntary acts.
And with the proposed change to the RSA included in my proposal and the 
removal of needs requirements from 8.3, the fear of signing one may be 
mitigated for a legacy holder.

On the other hand, the record shows that there is limited incentive for 
legacy holders to sign any incarnation of the LRSA, so presumably they would 
view the more-restrictive RSA as an anathema.
There is a relationship, though, between increasing transfer rights for 
holders under an RSA and increasing the incentive to sign one.

And now legacy holders see that a bankruptcy court gave Nortel the 
unrestricted right to transfer addresses originally allocated as legacy 
space to entities Nortel acquired in the 1990s.
So addresses allocated to Company A passed into the "ownership" of Company B 
without recourse to any ARIN processes. To these legacy holders, this is a 
step in the recognition that these addresses ARE transferrable legally, 
whether or not ARIN is involved, and whether or not whois is updated. 
Presumably ARIN pitched MS hard to sign an RSA, so as to conform with the 
8.3 policy as written, but met with resistance and instead settled for a 
modified LRSA. To me this is evidence that these transactions involving 
legacy space are bound to continue, and the acquiesence of ARIN to LRSA 
tells me the legacy holders are negotiating from a position of legal 
strength. In addition, legacy holders know they can be active in the APNIC 
market without having to sign an agreement.

I want all transfers recorded in whois, and I don't want to miss recording 
transactions due to requiring agreements that are onerous.

Still, as a legacy holder myself who has not signed the LRSA, I would be 
inclined to sign the stripped-down LRSA Mr. Herrin suggested, and I would be 
more likely to sign even an RSA upon adoption of  my proposed policy, since 
I would have new rights to resist a utilization review and would also have 
the ability to do needs-free transfers. These things would go a long way in 
overcoming existing disincentives to signing either agreement.

A side effect of the adoption of my proposal is that it would settle the 
issue of address leasing, to my mind. Since an address holder could hold a 
pool of addresses without fear of a section 12 review, and since he would be 
free to transfer to another party without a needs requirement, he can 
structure the transfer as a lease financially and contractually with the 
lessee, and structure it as two 8.3 transfers with ARIN, one out to the 
lessee, and then one back to the lessor at the end of the term.

This ability to lease has always been associated with an increased value of 
legacy address space, in my mind. By allowing for RSA holders to hold 
addresses, transfer to and from their customers, again the disincentive 
towards signing the RSA are reduced.

Let me cogitate and maybe hear about the potential for change to the LRSA 
that Bill and John were discussing,  and I will submit a proposal that is 
not a draft and the AC can take the temperature of the list.

Maybe the net effect of my proposal is to treat every pre-exhaust allocant 
as near legacy-equivalents and wouldn't that be a good thing ?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com>
To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
Cc: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers

> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> RSA, I could support it. I do not support granting LRSA to transfer
>> recipients. The LRSA provides special benefits that are intended to
> I agree.    The  LRSA is an agreement between ARIN and a legacy resource 
> holder.
> A transfer recipient is not a legacy resource holder;  a transfer
> recipient is a new
> resource holder.
> Also,  there is no reason ARIN should adopt a more lax policy in 
> anticipation
> that a resource holder will ignore their obligations in attempting to make
> 'undocumented' transfers not allowed by policy.
> Legitimizing non-needs-based transfers would encourage them.
> It is questionable whether black market transfers would even be
> attempted, otherwise, by any legacy holders with significant number
> resources assigned to their network.
>> Owen
> --
> -JH 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list