[arin-ppml] Transfers by non-legacy address holders and perceived risk of reclamation

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:31 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> NRPM 4.2.2 "Organizations [...] must satisfy the following
>> requirements: [...] Demonstrate efficient use of IP address space
>> allocations"
>>
>> NRPM 4.2.4.1 "ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations"
>>
>> etc. etc. The phrase "efficient utilization" appears in the NRPM a
>> full dozen times. Synonymous phrases appear more.
>
> You might want elaborate on those "etc. etc." cases, as your
> assertion is that ARIN has an ongoing proactive responsibility
> to enforce efficiency in existing allocations

John,

That does not describe my assertion. Perhaps I expressed myself in a
way that was not clear.

Moving forward with IPv4 address management, I see two paths. In one
path ARIN continues to "enforce efficient utilization." Past versions
of "enforce efficient utilization" were conveniently applied when more
addresses were requested. Future versions must and will evolve to take
scarcity into account.

On the other path, ARIN presumes that scarcity will do an adequate job
of forcing efficient utilization on its own and ARIN ceases its
efforts. That path leaves ARIN in charge of little more than recording
transfers and leads to addresses becoming property in reality if not
in name.

I DO NOT see a healthy middle road between these two paths. The
possible middle roads appear fraught with destructive half-measures.

So, in my opinion, the healthy choice is a binary one: efficient
utilization enforcement with steadily increasing rigor to match
scarcity and demand, OR addresses as property and let the market be.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004