[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu May 12 22:44:36 EDT 2011

On May 12, 2011, at 5:22 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> 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.

Not necessarily. I believe that in the case of most ARIN policy, they are, first
and foremost intended as a way for the community to communicate their
consensus based intent of how number resources should be managed
and depend to a large degree (though not entirely) on voluntary compliance.

I agree entirely with all but the first sentence, just wanted to clarify that
point on the first sentence.

>> 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.
I believe it is generally unwise for ARIN to emulate APNIC in a number of ways. A phrase my
parents used to use with some frequency when I attempted such a justification was "If your
friends jumped off a bridge, would you follow them?"

While I think that APNIC's choice in this area is ill-advised, I respect their authority and their
right to make said choice. However, I will not advocate ARIN emulating their behavior unless
I see a good reason to do so. So far, the most compelling reason presented has been "because
APNIC thinks it's right". (No, I'm not ignoring the other arguments, merely pointing out that they
are even less compelling).


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list