[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-3: ASN Transfers

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 23, 2012, at 9:03 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 3/23/2012 8:18 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/16/2012 2:23 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
>>>> The knowledge that route (a) was originated by AS (x) is only meaningful insofar as one has some set of high-confidence beliefs/expectations about AS (x). However, if AS (x) can change hands at will, henceforth no such confidence will be possible for the overwhelming majority if not all ASes.
>>> I would point out that this fact is *already* true, as ASNs are transferred through merger and acquisition all the time, and have been for over a decade.
>>> 
>>> I don't see anyone proposing a policy where an entity is required to return (and have permanently marked as unavailable) their ASN when ownership changes... I see, for instance, that AS 1 and AS 701 are still out there, despite the above happening several times, and yet nothing terrible has happened as a result.
>>> 
>> I don't see acquiring the reputation of a network when acquiring the entire network as being all that likely to be harmful.
> 
> What makes you think that ASNs acquired through M&A transfer always come with "the entire network"?
> 
The ARIN policies that say they are supposed to (or at least a significant portion of it).

> 
>>  At the time of acquisition, the network is still behaving according to its reputation and what is done will cause necessary modifications to that reputation as time goes by.
> 
> Yes. Perhaps immediately, as the new owners are of course entirely different people with likely different motivations. The network might immediately have vastly different traffic patterns. Etc.
> 

Pretty rare so far.

>> 
>> On the other hand, I can see tremendous potential for mischief when acquiring an AS Number on the open market without having to take on the operation of said network as part of the package.
> 
> No different than the current situation. You simply make more money for the lawyers when you require that it use the M&A transfer process.
> 
>> 

We have long since agreed to disagree on this topic. Current practice to date would seem to support my position.

>> I think these are very different scenarios.
>> 
>> Again, I think we're seeing enough problems created by allowing transfers with IPv4 addresses
> 
> Really? What problems are those? From where I sit, I've seen none.
> 

That doesn't surprise me.

> And are those any different than the problems that already existed with transfers of IPv4 addresses via M&A transfer?
> 

Very much so.

Owen