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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 21 04:39:46 EST 2012

> I think I may have been unclear. I was referring to registrants
> viewing the allocation as an asset, not simply listing in a registry.
> (Though, that is what they actually have)

What is an allocation other than a listing in a registry? I do not understand
what you are saying here.

> More fundamentally, I believe that needs testing 8.3 transfers, while
> having specific language in the RSAs that preclude reclaimation of
> unused resources is not consistent. If allocation really is meant to
> be driven by need, then reclaimation of unused resources seems to be a
> fundamental piece. As it stands now, the combination of policies
> rewards a combination of I.T. / Legal savvy, and requesting as much in
> the way of resources as one can possibly get away with, regardless of
> how those resources will be actually be allocated within an
> organization. As IPv4 nears exhaustion, I believe the community is
> going to be faced with a difficult choice regarding needs-based
> allocation.

Agreed. I would rather see the reclamation language restored except
in the case of LRSA.

In the case of the LRSA, that protection represents the community giving
up certain of its rights in order to provide a small inducement to said
legacy holders to join the community with full citizenship rather than
continue to operate on the edges of the community with vague and
ill-defined applicability of community policy.

> If the community consensus is to allocate based on need, then I
> believe policy for reclaimation should be adopted. If the community
> consensus is to treat IP allocations as an asset, then needs testing
> seems to be an undue and potentially anti-competitive burden on those
> seeking allocations and something that will result in less
> utilization.

I agree with you and section 12 was, in part, an attempt to do so.
Unfortunately, fear of litigation and lack of political will seem to
have overwhelmed the intent of section 12.

> I'm not opposed to either set of policies, but the current mix seems
> to strongly favor existing users of space. I think the fundamental
> question is "Are internet number allocations an asset?".

Fundamentally, no. They are not. Unfortunately, there are many
people with a vested interest in trying to convert them into an
asset, so, those people will continue to attempt to cloud the
issue in various ways and do whatever can be done to make
them seem like an asset.

Fundamentally, an IP allocation is a line-item in a database.
The database is maintained according to a set of rules
established by the community. IP allocations are not any
form of exclusive right to use or guarantee of usefulness
or property or any of the other things one would normally
require to define something as an asset.

The whole system works because the people who run routers
(ISPs) tend to do so according to the data contained in the
database on a cooperative basis. That cooperation is voluntary
and any individual ISP can change their mind about cooperating
at any time. Likely, if it's just one, they will get depeered and become
irrelevant to the rest of the internet. However, if it is a critical
mass, you might see interesting segmentation of the IPv4
internet developing. 

This may, in fact, be one of the scenarios that leads to a rapidly
accelerated deployment of IPv6.


> Sorry for beating what is, I suspect, a very dead horse,
> --- Harrison
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list