[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification

[Jo Rhett]

On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> I suppose what I'm stumbling over is that today, we
> have large blocks of v4 address space that today
> are held be registrants who are not routing them
> as part of the global IPv4 routing table.  You seem
> to feel that they somehow qualified as "operators"
> in a way that has significance, in spite of them not
> routing their address space in a reachable fashion,
...
> I see large chunks of address space assigned by IANA that are not operationally visible on the v4 internet;

There are many, many reasons that people use globally unique addresses for private purposes. Just because an IP range is not providing service to you, does not mean it is not a valid use of globally unique space. Just a few of those reasons include transit links through diverse providers, private interconnects for paid services, etc. And no, RFC1918 space is not always a workable option for these situations.

> whereas "speculators" would somehow be categorized as "non-operators".

Where do end user organizations fall in your scheme?  You seem to be applying a very narrow selection to what you consider valid uses of IP space.

> And if there is no distinguishable difference between
> "operators" and "non-operators", then the class of
> "operators", who managed to obtain IP space thus
> far, in spite of not actually routing it on the global
> internet, is functionally equivalent to the class of
> "anyone that can buy IPv4"--ie, non-operators.

I don't believe that this is confusing in ARIN policy sense. I believe that this is confusing to you, but that doesn't prevent the current policy from being valid.

> So...again...please help me understand the nature
> of the category of "operator" that allows one to
> obtain globally routable IP space with no plans
> to route it on the global internet, from the category
> of "speculator"?

May I suggest that instead of asking us to educate you, that you start by reading the existing ARIN documents for valid reasons for assignment of IP space?  This seems very clearly defined to me.

> I'm simply trying to come up with a definition
> of what an IP Speculator might be,

Definition is simple: someone who wants to make money from IP space.  The problem is that you can't make policy that prevents it only during allocation. Almost all of the IP speculators were once businesses with valid uses of IP space, which have either failed or transitioned in such a manner than their IP space is no longer used. The only way to solve this problem is to direct ARIN to recover IP space based on some criteria, and that battle has been fought for many years with no resolution in sight.

The only policy which might be necessary to prevent "pure" speculators (ones who never had need of the space except to sell) is that space could be recovered if proof was provided that the assignee had lied to ARIN, and that policy already exists. And again, only if they have signed a recent RSA.

> So, let me make sure I understand your position on this;
> from your perspective, it is entirely proper to have different
> rules that apply to different entities within the ARIN region.
> There is no requirement to have the rules equally apply to
> everyone?

There are different rules for different types of organizations, and there are different rules for different types of resources.  I don't see any chance of unifying them, nor do I see any reasonable argument for changing the current structure.

> I think the analogy I'm looking at is more along the lines
> of someone who has inherited land being allowed to sell
> that land to overseas investors, completely tax-free, whereas
> everyone who did not inherit their property must sell the
> property with government involvement, including restrictions
> on the zoning of the land being sold, and taxes on the transfer
> of the land.

No, to be clear you are complaining because people who paid 10cents for the land hundreds of years ago are making more profit than people who paid modern rates for it, and there was  a lot less land to grab recently. You should look up the settlement of the west of the US and "homesteading" for good historical analogies.  There is no fault in those who paid for their land in sweat equity, but you sure are trying to make a case for it.  I disagree.

> I'm not actually proposing anything, I'm simply advocating
> for the removal of needs-based allocations.

And none of your logic makes any sense, mostly because you would appear to be unaware of most of what you are arguing about.  The needs-based policies make perfect sense, and I fully support their continued employment.

And I'm going to stop here, because you talk a lot but you neither read the available documents nor listen to those who try to educate you. 

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120228/3aff71c1/attachment.htm>