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

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Alexander, Daniel
<Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> Thank you for clarifying your point. If I understand you correctly, needs
> requirements should be consistent across all regions for inter-RIR
> transfers to be equitable to those within the ARIN region. To achieve this
> parity, you feel it is more appropriate to define requirements through
> global policy, and not through local pressures exerted on another RIR.

Hi Dan,

That, OR set local policy so that any unavoidable unfairness is
weighted to favor recipients in the originating region.

> You
> also mention on the other end, that ARIN could race to the bottom and
> reduce it's requirements to match all the other regions, but that may be a
> premature approach.

There's a persuasive argument to be made that the cost per IPv4
address is likely to be high enough that money alone will be
sufficient to assure efficient utilization. That would allow us to
withdraw the other controls. IF that proves to be the case, the the
only remaining objection to an interregion transfer policy would be
the lack of a reciprocity requirement. Under 2011-1, the receiving RIR
is not required to have a policy which permits ARIN registrants to
receive transfers from that RIR's region.

However, persuasive though the argument is I'm not yet sold on the
idea that dollars alone get the job done. I'd prefer to wait and see
what happens when the free pool is finally empty before taking that
step.


> A concern I have is that a global needs review proposal would take years
> to work through. I would also assume that it is not operationally
> sustainable having ARIN vet all requests both in and out of region. Do you
> think these are fair assumptions

Given that we've been trying to create a global policy for address
reallocation for several years and have thus far failed, I think the
first assumption is a safe one.

The latter assumption doesn't ring entirely true. ARIN regularly vets
requests from entities which have not previously interacted with ARIN.
How is asking them to vet a request for a transfer out-region
meaningfully more onerous?

> Is there a middle ground or
> alternative you would find acceptable in a proposal that did not define
> the policies of another RIR?

If anyone came up with a viable middle ground, I missed it in the
noise. Maybe something like having the recipient RIR make the
evaluation, but expect the RIR to apply the strictest merge of both
RIR's recipient policies. Make that application a condition of the
policy being deemed compatible.

Sort of like what happens in U.S. Courts: a large dollar lawsuit in
state court can be removed to federal court when the parties are from
different states. But when that happens, the federal court follows
state law instead of federal law.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004