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

[Ron Grant]

The proposal states two goals: to
- Correct inconsistent language in 8.4 eg "IPv4 Address" v. "IPv4 Number 
Resource(s)"

which is a trivial change that I'm sure we'd all agree with, and to

- Allow the transfer of ASNs between RIRs

which, oddly, I am ALSO in favour of. If we allow it "intra" we should 
allow it "inter".

I just don't think we should muddy the IPv4 transfer process with them. 
Speculation and hoarding? Exactly! These ARE things we should be worried 
about wrt IPv4 addresses, but NOT wrt ASNs. So if we start discussing 
change to 8.4 to address hoarding issues, we shouldn't have to also 
discuss making exceptions for ASNs, or complicating the language by 
having to twist ourselves around it. I'll give long odds that we'll be 
modifying 8.4 again and again over the years, and can you imagine the 
extra work because of the one phrase: " and ASNs"?

If inter-RIR transfer of ASNs is a worthy goal, surely it deserves it's 
own process, not just tacked onto the IPv4 process....?



On 12-10-30 10:14 AM, Michael Burns wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Ron Grant                                Managed DSL/T1/Wireless/Fibre
Skyway West Business Internet          Internet and Private Networking
rgrant at skywaywest.com                  Bonding and Fail Over Solutions
ph:  604 737 2113               Virtual Data Centre and Private Clouds
fax: 604 482 1299                            http://www.skywaywest.com

Sales, Support and Billing    http://www.skywaywest.com/contact-us.htm