[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Blecker, Christoph]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of jeffmehlenbacher at ipv4marketgroup.com
> Sent: June-28-12 6:37 AM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to
> 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers
> 
> Owen, I appreciate your continued concern for the health of our business
> model.  However, your suggestion to wait for the free pool to run out
> (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html) and then wait another
> 6-12 months to view partial statistics within ARIN and ignore all other
> statistical evidence outside of ARIN's statistical capture isn't
> terribly compelling is it?  Projecting free pool depletion and adding
> your outer limit of another 12 months might suggest we not touch 8.3
> justification duration until sometime 2014.  One might be accused of
> "head in the sand" thinking if the community embraced such a position
> while inter-RIR transfers are afoot between ARIN and APNIC in July 2012
> followed by ARIN and RIPE in September 2012.
> 
> Again, in the here and now, I state based on our extensive dialogue with
> prospective buyers that there can be two categories of planners: those
> that will systematically continue to go to the 90-day well for free
> allocations and those, that if properly motivated by increasing the
> justification from 24 months to 60 months, will enter the 8.3 Specified
> Transfer market under ARIN policy.  If efficiently allocating unused
> IPv4 legacy resources via policy improvements on 8.3 specified transfers
> prolongs IPv4 utilization and defers IPv6 adoption, I empathize only
> with the people and organizations who base their business models on
> evangelistic trumpeting of all things IPv6 and comment on IPv4 transfer
> policy proposals on that basis.
> 
> Jeff Mehlenbacher

Hi Jeff,
I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things like IPv6 uptake and such, the major concern is that networks can't reasonably plan what things will look like 5 years from now. Unless this is the case, perhaps it would be better not to dance around the issue and propose removing the needs-based requirement from 8.3 transfers all together.

Without more details on what a reasonable 60-month IPv4 usage forecast looks like, I cannot support the proposal as written.

Best regards,

--
Christoph Blecker
The University of British Columbia