[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Astrodog]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Sweeting, John
<john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/12 10:32 PM, "Astrodog" <astrodog at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Also opposed.
>>>
>>> Isn't "making lots of money by cornering the IPv4 address market" also
>>> a "business purpose"?
>>
>>Support.
>>
>>I believe the concern about speculation with IP addresses is fairly
>>overblown. If an entity were to attempt such a move, it would induce
>>more efficent usage among existing users, so that they could sell
>>portions of their space (or avoid purchasing additional address
>>space). This carries with it a very large risk that the addresses such
>>an entity purchased would become nearly worthless, either due to
>>oversupply as large address space holders sold off their space, or due
>>to IPv6 migration and more efficent utilization due to the short term
>>increased cost driving demand for the addresses down over longer
>>periods of time.
>>
>>It is unlikely, given these concerns, that such an endevour would be
>>attempted on a large scale or that such an attempt would have any
>>significant impact on long term "pricing" of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>>The positives with such an approach are significant, though, as it
>>greatly reduces the time and effort required on the part of both
>>parties, as well as ARIN, to effect such a transfer, making it much
>>easier for IP addresses to go to those entities who will use them.
>
> So what is the harm in asking them to share how they will be using them?
> Is it your belief that just makes it "too hard"?
>

The problem lies more in the time and labor required to make the
transfer itself happen. Needs-based justification is not an instant
process, and involves arrainging for legal disclosure of whatever it
is they plan to do. As a result, companies are likely to purchase, and
justify larger allocations than they would otherwise, simply to avoid
repeating the hassle, even if it means they end up just sitting on
those addresses for quite some time.

Obviously, organizations request allocations now. The existing process
is not so difficult as to be unworkable. I simply believe that
removing the needs-based justification will improve the utilization of
addresses because it will become easier for organizations to obtain
addresses quickly, when they need them, and easier for them to sell
addresses to someone else when they do not.

>
>>
>>The situation, as things stand today, appears to involve companies
>>deciding to arrainge such a transfer, then trying to back in to a
>>justification under 8.3.
>>
>>--- Harrison
>
> Just wondering, do you know of any organizations today that face that
> situation?

Most organizations I deal with work at fairly small scales as far as
IP allocations go. In those organizations, the rule appears to largely
be, "Request as much space as we can possibly justify. We'll come up
with something to do with it later." I have not seen this applied to
inter-organizational transfers, but I don't see where the distinction
would be from their perspective.

--- Harrison

... snip ...