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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> 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"?
>
>
>
>>  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.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> And are those any different than the problems that already existed with
> transfers of IPv4 addresses via M&A transfer?
>


I've said similar things in this thread and I'll simply add +1.

What we seem to be talking about here, at least from the counter
argument perspective, is a desire to regulate business process instead
of providing a technically sound and useful mechanism to enable ASN
transfers.  As someone involved in peering with literally hundreds of
networks, I'm not convinced that there is a risk that I need to be so
concerned about that I would want to disallow ASN transfers,
especially without a single real life incident that is compelling
enough to warrant a change in thought.

Adopting this policy will allow ARIN to "get out of the way" and
legitimize what's already transpiring on a regular basis.  This is a
good thing.


Best,

-M<