[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate
farmer at umn.edu
Thu May 12 20:22:22 EDT 2011
On 5/11/11 22:09 CDT, Mike Burns wrote:
> I'm sure there are many more that I cannot think of. I agree with you
> that most buyers will have need, and I agree with you that most buyers
> will see the value of maintaining a valid ARIN whois record pointing to
> their authority.
Unfortunately, most rules are meant to enforce something on those who
are not necessarily acting reasonably. Above you save "most buyers will
see value" what about those that don't. Or, what about those, that see
a value in ensuring that their competitors can't get addresses and that
the whole system doesn't shift to IPv6. I don't want to see something
like that happen and I'm not entirely sure it can't.
> But the policy in APNIC was changed to remove needs requirements for
> transfers for the same reasons I am requesting its removal here.
There are other policy differences between APNIC and ARIN then just
needs or non-needs based transfers that are relevant to the changes due
to IPv4 run-out. There is also a fundamental difference in the way APNIC
and ARIN plan to operate the pool of addresses they have left, APNIC is
reserving their whole /8 and allowing each organization a single /22.
The ARIN community has reserved /10 of IPv4 for IPv6 purposes, but is
allowing need to driver the run-out of the rest of the pool, limiting to
3 month need for fairness with new entrants and to reduce the
competitive disparity created by IPv4 run-out. Additionally ARIN added
officer attestations, to ensure organizational accountability for
requests, I believe this will strongly suppress the tendency for ARIN to
have a run-out curve like APNIC had during the first 4 months of 2011.
So there are a number of differences in how ARIN and APNIC are
approaching the fundamental changes that are occurring, and it would be
a mistake to evaluate only one of these issues out of context with the
others. I'm not trying to say APNIC did or is doing something wrong or
ARIN did or is doing it right, but there is more to the picture than
just needs or non-needs based transfers. If ARIN is going to change to
a non-needs based transfer regime lime APNIC we may also need to change
many more parts of policy as a consequence.
The point here is that ARIN's policies are consistent, if you have need
you can have addresses, be that from the free pool or from transfers.
Much of the ARIN community didn't like to idea of addresses sitting at
ARIN, if there was need for them.
APNIC is also consistent, in that once they get down to the last /8, it
doesn't matter if you need addresses you only get a /22 once from the
last /8 pool, and you can transfer without need.
I believe it would be unwise for ARIN community to change only one part
of its policies to emulate APNIC.
> My policy proposal also has the benefit of incentivizing legacy
> resources to come under RSA, and it serves to even the playing field
> between the disparate rights of legacy versus non-legacy holders.
> And my underlying point is the obvious one, that the very act of paying
> for address space is a very good indication of need, or at least
> perceived need on the part of the buyer.
I think it is a good indication of perceived value in all cases, it is a
indication of need in some cases, but not in all cases. If you want to
corner the market on IPv4 there maybe sufficient value to someone to do
so, but that is not a valid need. And, this is the case where your
analysis breaks down.
That said I'm not certain that current criteria for evaluating need will
even be valid once there is no longer a free pool. The basic idea that
you get a years worth of need based on your past years consumption of
addresses assumes the existence of a free pool. Once we get more than a
year into a market-like transfer system, what you used last year has
more to do with how much money you were willing to spend that what your
actual need was. And if the price was high the previous year and if you
simply evaluate your need by how much addressing you used last year when
the price was high that isn't necessarily a true representation of your
So I am equally skeptical of maintaining the current needs based system
as is, as I am of completely abandoning the concept of a needs basis.
Right now I'm thinking allowing transfers up to some size limit over
some period of time without justifying need more than putting up the
cash to do it, on the premise that within some safety limits it might be
a good idea to let the market work things out. However, if you want to
transfer more than those limits you can, but you must justify your need
beyond those limits. Either based on your previous years usage or based
on the fact that you have put previously transferred addresses into
Just throwing some numbers out, I'm thinking up to the equilivant of a
/12 (or a little more than 1 million IPv4 addresses) of transfers
received within 12 months per organization without documenting need.
There needs to be a mechanism that prevents gaming by creating multiple
organizations by the same real organization, maybe this is another place
for officer attestations.
For most organizations a /12 is more or less unlimited, but that is
probably not enough to corner the market of IPv4 addresses and anyone
who really needs more than a /12 can probably justify it without much
more hassle then now. If they really need more than a /12 they are
probably quite adept at working with ARIN already. I think this would
give the invisible hand enough room to do its magic, without allowing
someone to corner the IPv4 market and destroy the Internet as we know
it. Depending how the actually market progresses, someone could maybe
still corner the IPv4 address market, but if they can do that with a /12
then it will really be the time for everyone to move to IPv6.
What I mean by "destroy the Internet as we know it", is anyone big
enough, or that anyone thinks is big enough, to stall the transition of
the Internet to IPv6, getting enough IPv4 addresses to attempt to do so.
I'm not sure anyone is big enough, but I'm just not sure no one is.
In my view this doesn't abandon needs basis, it significantly changes it
based on new the realities we are facing. We are using the market to
determine need up to a cretin extent, and beyond that requiring
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML