[arin-ppml] DRAFT POLICY 2012-3: ASN TRANSFERS

[Michael Sinatra]

On 3/30/12 8:41 AM, JOSHUA SNOWHORN wrote:

>>> Why should any number be viewed as favorably or unfavorably?
>>> Unless it is a very rare special number attached to superstition
>>> (7, 13 and 666 are the only 3 examples I can think of), you must
>>> be refering to the reputation attached to an AS by the business
>>> reputation of its former holder.  Rather than inducing clarity,
>>> attempting to confuse people by trading on the reputation of the
>>> current or former holder without acquiring the network, assets,
>>> customers or anything else that reputation was built on, smacks
>>> of deception.

> Regardless of any one individuals superstition or ideas, the fact
> remains that people like to have lower AS numbers and do feel it
> somehow represents credibility. Your assumption of the reputation of
> the previous holder however I do not think brings any bearing to this
> argument. I think it is just the "old school" credibility of that low
> AS that matters….not the previous owners good or bad reputation which
> is evidenced by the renaming in whole, generally, of the handles
> associated with that AS.

You seem to be saying that it's not actual reputation that is being
traded, but some sort of misperception that ASNs in a certain number
range bring credibility.  So rather than trade on actual reputation
(which I would question in itself), you are advocating creating a market
where a fake perception of reputation is what's traded.  That doesn't
sound to me like a market that will efficiently allocate resources,
although it may efficiently allocate misperception.

IPv4 number transfers make sense.  IPv6 number transfers do not.  I am
on the fence about ASN transfers, but it's arguments like these in favor
that are making me increasingly wary.

michael