[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 1, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> 
> 
> 
>> When STLS was being developed, the AC was very careful to specify that
>> merely listing resources for sale on STLS or through another medium was
>> not in itself to subject a resource holder to a section 12 review or any
>> procedure for revocation. Neither, however, was such listing intended to
>> provide a safe harbor against ARIN proceeding with any such action
>> based on other independent data or investigation.
> 
>> In other words, while we don't want listing your addresses to flag you for
>> an audit, we also don't want to create a situation where merely listing
>> addresses gives you an exemption from policy.
> 
>> Owen
> 
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> In the real world, the real corporate world at least, the idea of every workstation having a real public IP address went away more than a decade ago for the most part.

Only because of address shortage.

> Same thing in the residential world.

Again, only because of address shortage.

There is no reason that organizations which obtained their addresses prior to shortage should buy into that shortage mentality just to subsidize those that are late to the party. The solution, instead, is to go to IPv6 where there is no address shortage.

> In fact, my guess is that you would only see such profligate use of IP addresses in public or academic environments.

http://www.delong.com -- Household environment... In fact, MY home.

You will not find any NAT in my home.

I know of several companies that actually have public IPs on their systems. I don't know if it is still the case at Sun Microsystems, but, it certainly was the case when I worked there well after many other businesses had started using NAT.

> 
> It's only a guess based on my experience, perhaps some more feedback is needed?
> 

More than likely. I think many businesses and others that have had address space for a long time have opted out of NAT and chosen to continue using end-to-end capable addresses rather than accept greater limitations on a lesser internet.

> As far as the idea of people returning address space to ARIN for community purposes, how's that working out for ARIN?
> 

Reasonably well. ARIN receives a fair amount of returned space.

> You have merely restated the problem I elucidated with John.
> 
> You want to maintain the belief system that addresses are to be returned for disuse per the RSA, and that enforcement of that is incorporated as a section 12 review/revokation.
> 

That's true. I don't see a problem.

> Yet 8.3 allows holders to sell addresses.
> 

Actually, 8.3 allows a holder of resources to specify who is to receive those resources after they return them to ARIN, so long as the recipient qualifies under ARIN policy to receive said resources. The presence or absence of a financial transaction between the holder and the recipient is not something ARIN involves itself in.

> The conundrum of course is that in order to comply with policy, the seller has to pretend to be using the addresses efficiently so as to preclude the threat of section 12.
> 

No, the holder needs to BE using the addresses efficiently or return them to ARIN. If the holder is in the process of selecting a preferred recipient for them in good faith, ARIN will not interfere with that because the seller has indicated an intent to return those addresses so that they can be issued to another recipient. ARIN does not involve itself in the holders method of selection of a recipient other than to insist that the recipient be eligible for the addresses under ARIN policy in order to receive them.

> If the seller chooses to thus pretend in order to advertise his available space, his lawyer, reading the RSA, is likely to advise him that he runs the risk of losing that space to a section 12 review.

True. If he is having to pretend, then, he probably long since should have returned the space. However, he runs no more risk advertising his available space than he would if he did not advertise it. Unless his lawyer is a idiot, he should also recognize that from reading the RSA and doing further research.

> His shareholders, then, (even if it is one person holding the shares), will advise not to advertise the addresses, instead to hold on and wait for policy change, or else to process a transaction in the dark so as not to engender the section 12 review.
> 

Advertising the space will not engender a section 12 review.

Holding the addresses and not using them MAY engender a section 12 review.

Processing a transaction in the dark will likely result in a section 12 review of the recipient who may well sue the holder organization for fraud at the end of that trail.

> Neither of these last options is desirable if we truly are seeking to bring unused addresses into use and comply with the goals of conservation and registrations.
> 

Neither of those last options is desirable for the holder under current policy unless the holder has a strong preference for risk.

Owen