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

[Joshua Snowhorn]

On Mar 30, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Michael Sinatra <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:

> 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.

I said "somehow represents credibility". Not saying it gives it...but if it is just cool or does infer credibility (I agree that is lame), a person or company should have the benefit, perceived or factual, of acquiring said asset if another party has no need for it. No harm done to anyone and instead a benefit for the new user...in their own minds :)

> 
> 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.

Can't fault you here...but I would argue that should let market forces dictate this and have a process for it to occur should it ever end up existing. Frankly the volume and value of that market will likey be tiny. 

> 
> michael

Josh