[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
owen at delong.com
Fri May 27 16:14:18 EDT 2011
On May 27, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> This requirement would create additional incentives for parties to engage in a deal, but to avoid telling ARIN about it.
Not really... In fact, it will probably make such deals easier to identify and make it easier to reclaim blocks
transferred fraudulently in contravention of policies developed through the consent of the community.
> And particularly early in the transfer market, there may not be enough supply to ensure that every sized single-aggregate will be available for the same cost as the sum of a bunch of smaller purchases.
There will probably never be enough supply in the transfer market to ensure this. So what? That's the reality.
There's not enough IPv4. Don't like it? Move to IPv6.
> What does the buyer do then?
Same thing they do when the transfer market is empty... Move to IPv6.
> In other words, supposed the buyer is sized like Microsoft and has a need for 660,000 addresses?
> How long must they wait for a seller to appear?
If they're smart, not long... They'll go to IPv6 instead. In case you haven't noticed, we're running out
of available IPv4. The market will run out of available IPv4 relatively quickly too. Anyone building or
staking their business strategy on the continued availability of IPv4 is impressively optimistic
about the future of IPv4 at best.
> The effect of this policy would be for an entity with justified needs to be unable to use an aggregate of smaller, but available blocks, and for those smaller blocks to be left on the sidelines.
I doubt the smaller blocks will be left on the sidelines. I'm quite certain they will get used by others
who have justified need for them.
> Neither of these things comports with our role as stewards to get addresses into productive use.
It aligns with the intent of the policy which received community consensus.
> -Mike Burns
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at>
> To: "ARIN" <info at arin.net>
> Cc: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
>> On May 27, 2011, at 3:31 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
>> I am opposed to this policy. It directly contradicts my proposal to delete the single-aggregate requirement.
>> Also, I have noted in that proposal that the single-aggregate transfer requirement as it would apply with this proposal in effect can be trivially worked around simply by submitting a large number of individual transfers, each of which comes with justification. This just increases the amount of paperwork for both parties *and* ARIN with no other benefit.
>> (Even the Nortel-Microsoft paperwork filed with the court talks about multiple subsequent transfers, if needed, and how payment works in this case.)
>> Matthew Kaufman
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML