[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - revised

[David Farmer]

On 9/23/11 10:47 CDT, Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> To conclude the ARIN region has as much or more address space than the
>> rest of the world combined.  Part of that is natural, the Internet
>> started in what is now the ARIN region, but it seems wrong to say what
>> is in our region stays in our region when our region has been given so
>> much.  If you also include that most of the growth of the Internet is
>> and will continue to be outside our region then it is doubly wrong, and
>> just adds insult to injury.
>>
>> See: http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/nro_stats_2011_q2.pdf
>> and;
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
>>
> David,
>
> I will agree with you to a point and enthusiastically support your altruism.  To that end ARIN should identify how much surplus space it has and return that surplus block to IANA for redistribution to the poorer players.  This would be the simplest solution to the conundrum.

To me it is not altruism, it is motivated self interest.  Most of the 
growth of the Internet is occurring outside the ARIN region.  I happen 
to believe that enabling growth across the whole Internet provides more 
value to the ARIN region, my organization, and me as an individual, than 
enabling growth only within the ARIN region.  Or put it another way 
enabling growth within the ARIN region while causing or allowing 
stagnation of growth in other regions does not serve the real needs of 
the ARIN region or the Internet.

> If, however, one maintains that the best route is to hold the space for maximum profit in directed transfers then I will posit that the motivation is not altruism but greed.

As I see it we had three basic choices;

1. Ask people to return addresses for reuse

2. Force people to return addresses for reuse

3. Create a system that allows economic incentives for reuse of addresses

While there are notable exceptions, #1 hasn't been all that successful 
overall.  #2 will necessarily cause an adversarial relationship between 
ARIN and resource holders and will likely lead to litigation.  That 
leaves us with some form of #3, while controversial I believe we have a 
consensus for what we are calling "needs based specified transfers." 
Organizations that can justify their need can negotiate with other 
organizations that have or can create a surplus of addresses.

You seem to be fundamentally opposed to transfers and are more arguing 
against any expansion of transfers, than you seem to be arguing against 
sharing addresses with the rest of the world.

I have come to believe the only way we will see any significant reuse is 
through transfers, and I don't not think it is in the overall interest 
of the ARIN community to limit these transfers to only the ARIN region. 
  Now that APNIC is restoring a needs basis to there transfers and given 
that they are more or less out of addresses.  I can not see any 
justifiable reason to prevent them from arranging transfers from 
organizations within the ARIN region where the vast majority of the 
legacy address space is located.

The controversy surrounding transfers has lead to increasing animosity 
within the community both regionally and globally.  I believe we need 
pragmatic compromise to allow us to come to a consensus to move things 
forward.  I'm starting to see a consensus develop, APNIC is moving their 
prop-96 forward, to restore a needs basis.  Now, it is up to the ARIN 
community needs to find a way to allow inter-region transfers.



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================