[arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers

[Alexander, Daniel]

Thank you for the feedback Chris.

I was hoping to put the discussion of completely eliminating a needs
review on hold for now. There are details that need to be cleaned up with
respect to transfers, and the needs discussion sidetracks the conversation
too quickly. We should first solidify transfer policies, and then we can
debate the issue of needs assessment without an undue sense of urgency
regarding other details.

Not including "assignments" in section 8.3 was an oversight on my part. It
should be "allocations and assignments". I would, however hesitate on
including the word transfers in this restriction. The 12 month exclusion
is intended to prevent people from obtaining IPv4 resources from the free
pool and profiting from the transfer market. Do people think an
organization should be precluded from obtaining resources on the transfer
market if they exceed their original expectations and need more IP
resources?

I would be interested in hearing feedback on the refined text.

"The source entity (within the ARIN region) must not have received an
allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12
months prior to the transfer."


"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies."


Thanks,
Dan Alexander


On 1/13/12 11:05 AM, "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:

>Great work, thanks Dan! Comments inline, below.
>
>Cheers,
>~Chris
>
>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12, Alexander, Daniel
><Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> PPML,
>>
>> Do people think it is possible to consolidate the discussion of
>>prop-151,
>> and 2011-1 to achieve a productive end result? If we could use
>>"limiting"
>> to clarify rather than eliminate the issue of a needs-based requirement,
>> what aspects of a transfer policy still needs work? Here is some revised
>> text of prop-151 incorporating the discussions from the previous round.
>> Can this be used to address any concerns with 2011-1? I am curious to
>>know
>> if this bulleted format is preferred over the current paragraph format
>>of
>> the existing section 8.3.
>
>Yes, I think the bulleted format is preferable. In addition to my
>personal preference, I have received comments in the past wrt other
>policies from community members stating as much.
>
>> -Dan Alexander
>>
>>
>> Changes to the original prop-151 text:
>>
>> - Restored a needs requirement
>
>While I agree with this, I wonder if we should do this in two separate
>proposals. The intent of prop-151 (as per the title) is to limit the
>needs requirement on transfers, are we overstepping by ignoring that
>seemingly fundamental tenement of the originator's intent? I guess the
>fundamental question is: Do we need to have the needs discussion again
>or not?
>
>> - Eliminated the /12 cap
>> - Removed the suggestions to altering the text of the RSA.
>> - Removed the section regarding "Conditions on the IPv4 address block".
>> - Removed the condition of space being administered by ARIN to open the
>> possibility of inter-RIR transfers.
>> - Moved the minimum transfer size requirement down to remaining
>> Conditions.
>> - Separated in-region and inter-region transfers into separate sections.
>
>I was initially opposed to this. Seeing it here I think it may provide
>clarity and future flexibility. However, I still think that it may be
>better to collapse the two parts into one section. In any case, I
>think the best path forward is to work out the policy bits and then
>decide on format.
>
>> Resulting text:
>>
>> Replace Section 8.3 with
>>
>> 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region.
>>
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 numbers resources may
>>be
>> transferred according to the following conditions.
>>
>> Conditions on source of the transfer:
>>
>> * The source entity must be the current registered holder of the
>> IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to
>> the status of those resources.
>> * The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4
>> address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a period of 12
>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's
>> IPv4 space, whichever occurs first.
>> * The source entity must not have received an allocation from
>> ARIN for the 12 months prior to the transfer.
>
>I think this should include assignments and transfers, and should be
>limited to IPv4 addresses (ASNs and IPv6 should not disqualify an IPv4
>number transfer). It would then read:
>
>"The source entity must not have received an assignment, allocation,
>or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior
>to the transfer."
>
>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>>
>>
>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>>
>> * The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 12 month supply of
>> IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA.
>> * The resources transferred will be subject to current ARIN policies.
>>
>>
>> Add Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
>> transfer and share compatible, needs-based policies.
>
>Do we need to add a reciprocity requirement here? If yes, perhaps this
>sentence would read:
>
>"Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to
>the transfer, share compatible needs-based policies, and allow
>transfers both into and out of their region."
>
>> Conditions on source of the transfer:
>>
>> * The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4
>>address
>> resources recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not
>>be
>> involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
>> * Source entities outside of the ARIN region must meet any requirements
>> defined by the RIR where the source entity holds the registration.
>> * Source entities within the ARIN region will not be eligible to receive
>> any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from ARIN for a
>>period
>> of 12
>> months after the transfer, or until the exhaustion of ARIN's IPv4 space,
>> whichever occurs first.
>> * Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an
>> allocation or assignment from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the
>>transfer.
>
>Again, I think this should include transfers and be limited to IPv4
>resources, similar to above:
>
>"Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received an
>assignment, allocation, or transfer of IPv4 number resources from ARIN
>for the 12 months prior to the transfer."
>
>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>>
>>
>> Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>>
>> * The conditions on a recipient outside of the ARIN region will be
>>defined
>> by the policies of the receiving RIR.
>> * Recipients within the ARIN region will be subject to current ARIN
>> policies and sign an RSA for the resources being received.
>> * Recipients within the ARIN region must demonstrate the need for up to
>>a
>> 12 month supply of IPv4 address space.
>> * The minimum transfer size is a /24
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
>
>
>
>-- 
>@ChrisGrundemann
>weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
>www.burningwiththebush.com
>www.theIPv6experts.net
>www.coisoc.org