[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-183 Section 8.4 Transfer enhancement

[Michael Burns]

Hi Ron,

You have identified a distinction between ASNs and IPv4 addresses, but is it 
really a difference?
What does it matter that the one is in short supply and the other isn't?

Both are resources used in the running of the Internet.
Both come from the same source.
Both are part of the all-important registry.
Both are items that holders are desirous of transferring.

What is the downside to taking a step towards registry accuracy?
Are we worried about speculation and hoarding of ASNs now?


Regards,

Mike Burns
IPTrading.com




Ron wrote:
I disagree with the proposal, which as it stands attempts to conflate
"IPv4 address resources" with Autonomous System Numbers.


I don't think that the transfers have anything to do with each other,
and shouldn't be governed by the same principles. The language "IPv4
number resources and ASNs" suggests that some ASNs are "IPv4" and some
are not.

IPv4 addresses are a legacy resource in exceedingly short and dwindling
supply, which cannot easily be replaced by IPv6 addresses (regardless of
our desire to do so). They are also amenable to aggregation. And they'll
eventually go away.

ASNs are NOT in short supply. A 4-byte ASN means we have room in the
world for...uh...4 billion ISPs and multi-homers? Is that right? (wow,
talk about competition!). And ASN aggregation is meaningless, so
"efficient utilization" isn't really a desirable goal.

>From what my attention-addled brain gathers, the ASN transfer market is
about "vanity numbers" - i.e. low 2-byte or memorable ASNs. If there's
really a need for Inter-RIR transfers of vanity numbers, by all means
let's create a proposal in conjunction with other RIRs - but adding them
to the existing IPv4 transfer policy is jut going to make discussions
about the transfer policy more difficult. It will also make sunsetting
said policies in an IPv6 world impossible, since 4-byte ASNs will be
with us for MUCH longer than IPv4 addresses.