[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1:ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

[Mike Burns]

Hi Michael,

I simply restate my position that maintaining a needs requirement for
transfers will drive transactions off the books, particularly in the case of
legacy space which is under no agreement with ARIN.
Our highest priority is maintaining uniqueness through registration, and a
free transfer market will ensure conservation.

Your stance on keeping free-pool policy versus transfer policy the same is
at odds with your support of 2011-1 as written, because every RIR decides
its own transfer policy, which does not have to match ARIN's to allow 
recipients to receive transfers, but only ARIN decides ARIN free pool 
policy.

I have said earlier that if the issue is fairness to ARIN members who may
face higher restrictions on free pool addresses than non-ARIN  members do
through their own RIR's transfer  policy, my prescription would be to reduce
ARIN restrictions to match the other RIR's.  I am all for a race towards the
free-est transfer market.

If the issue is protecting the remaining free pool from those who would
plunder it through gamesmanship and/or fraud, then I think we should be
discussing policy which protects the free pool.
For which I have suggested banning recent free pool allocants from selling
addresses for some time, and John has suggested preventing the transfer of
addresses allocated herewith from the free pool until exhaust.

I also suggested the inclusion of a declared intention clause to the RSA
which would allow for ARIN to claim fraud based on prior bad acts by
allocants, and further work on detecting related legal entities who may be
seeking to acquire addresses through shells.

For the record I support extending the 3 month window for free pool
allocations, which I think is just too short. I don't object to making the
free pool requirements match the *current* transfer requirements, it's just
that I support dropping the needs requirement for transfers to incentivize
registration of transactions.


Regards,
Mike



-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael Sinatra
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:49 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: 
ARIN-2011-1:ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

On 10/25/11 10:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Randy Whitney wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2011 12:24 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>>
>>>   Note - another option (if the community is concerned about ARIN's
>>>   free pool being depleted for future xfers) would be to simply
>>>   disqualify all space issued henceforth from ARIN's available pool
>>>   from future specified transfer until the ARIN has no free space
>>>   remaining.  This is an imperfect control (due to the ability with
>>>   some effort to swap out older assignments) but might be sufficient
>>>   under the circumstances.
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>
>> I oppose this new wording. I can think of just as many hypothetical
>> opposite cases where this would cause future problems as those in the
>> vocal tiny protectionist minority against adopting the transfer policy
>> in the first place would, in support of this wording.
>
> Understood.
>
> To be clear, I definitely was not recommending such a change, but only
> pointing it out as a potential mechanism that had not had any discussion
> to date.  The need for _any_ additional controls is clearly still a matter
> of active discussion by the community.

Part of the problem is that there are too many distortions caused by the
uneven run-out in the various regions.  I see this discussion as an
attempt to ensure that we are affixing the doily on the rump of IPv4 in
the most precise manner possible.  There is a limit to the extent that
policy tweaking can do that, as the current market distortion is
significant.

A major way to reduce the current distortion, while continuing to
provide IPv4 space to those who need it, is to liberalize (contra Mike
Burns) the allocation policy from the free pool and make it consistent
with the transfer policy.  ARIN currently has the largest free pool, and
as long as that's the case, we will have to sit here and wring our hands
about the last few bits of IPv4 trickling to another region while we
shoot legitimate ISPs in the foot by making them request IPv4 space in
three-month chunks.  I'd be all for removing this text from NRPM 4.2.4.4:

"When ARIN receives its last /8, by IANA implementing section 10.4.2.2,
the length of supply that an organization may request will be reduced.
An organization may choose to request up to a 3-month supply of IP
addresses."

I continue to support 2011-1, as I did in Philadelphia, and I support
making the needs polices consistent, transfer-vs-free-pool.

michael



_______________________________________________
PPML
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.