[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Tue Jun 4 01:04:18 EDT 2013

Mike,
Operational need was also intended transfers per RFC 2050.

RFC 2050 section 4:

   7.  The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be
       approved by the regional registries.  The party trying to obtain
       the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were
       requesting an IP address directly from the IR.

___Jason

On Jun 3, 2013 7:43 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> All that is being demonstrated by your research below is that operational
need was a principle of allocation of addresses *from the free pool*.
> And that makes perfect sense to everybody. You had to have some means to
fairly distribute the addresses, and the lightest touch of the steward
would be to just give them away for free to anyone. Of course that would
allow anybody to claim all the addresses, so the lightest workable touch
then became giving them away for free to anyone who needed them. And that's
what we have done, and it has served us well.
>
> With a transfer market, pricing enforces conservation with the lightest
touch from ARIN stewards.
>
> The whole point here is that RFC2050 is outdated, right? I agree- it was
the product of a mindset which did not conceive of a life after the free
pool exhausts. There is no concept of a transfer market in RFC-2050, so why
draw the inference that the principle of conservation of free pool
addresses should be extended to transfers?
>
> The purpose of a market is to allocate scarce resources.  It does this
through pricing the resource. Now that we have this conservation force
working for us, it is our responsibility as stewards to step back, pat
ourselves on the back for a job well done with the free pool allocations,
and concentrate our resources on our primary role as registrars.  This
means we do not create or maintain policies that provide an incentive for
transfers to occur which are not booked in Whois, such as need tests for
transfers.
>
> I am opposed to 2013-4.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: David Farmer
>> To: William Herrin
>> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 7:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Against 2013-4
>>
>> On 6/3/13 15:52 , William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:24 PM, John Osmon <josmon at rigozsaurus.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When (say) MIT asked for space, Class B was too small their needs and
>>>> Class A was the only larger size available.  They didn't request a /8,
>>>> they requested a netblock that fit their needs and got a Class A.  The
>>>> needs assessment at the time was simply different.
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Not exactly. IIRC (and the old fogies are free to correct me here) the
>>> predecessor to IPv4 had exactly 256 addresses. When IPv4 was deployed,
>>> each prior user was automatically assigned the /8 corresponding to
>>> their prior address. MIT is one of the organizations which had a
>>> computer using the prior Internet protocol, so they automatically
>>> received a /8
>>
>> I'm not really an old fogie, at least I don't think I am.  However,
since I work for an organization with significant Legacy resources, I've
done a bit of research looking through the RFCs that document the earliest
IPv4 assignments, including several for my employer.   See, RFCs 790, 820,
870, 900, 923, 943, 960, 990, 997, 1020, 1166.
>>
>> Comparing RFC 776 and RFC 790 it is easy to infer what you say is what
happened in MIT's case, and a few others.  However, John is also right, if
you demonstrated need you could get a class A, at least for a some while.
This can also be inferred by comparing RFC 790 and RFC 820, note several
class As were assigned between these two RFCs.  Also, along the way through
this series RFCs class As were assigned, RFC 1166 is I think the last RFC
that documented address assignments in an RFC.
>>>
>>> Very few /8's were assigned after that. Anybody who wanted more than a
>>> class B received multiple class B's, not a class A.
>>
>> Eventually, yes that was the case, and was definitely the case by the
time RFC 1366 was published, However it was still technically possible to
get a class A even then, look at Section 4.1.
>>
>> Finally, as was pointed out earlier, operational need was required for
all assignments.  It was noted that even for a class C you had to estimate
how many hosts were going to be connected, initially, and at one, two and
five years.  As a thought experiment, what do you think John Postel would
have said, if you answered that question with zero(0), especially for the
one, two and five year parts of the question.  Do you think it might have
been "come back later"?
>>
>> The bar was low, but there was a bar even for class Cs, and that bar was
that you were going to use them in a network, "operational need"
>>
>> Therefore, I believe operational need is a principle that MUST be
included.  There are valid policy questions of what the proper measure of
operational need for the current times and current protocols are.  I
believe the measure of operational need will properly change over time, and
for IPv4 such a time is likely here or upon us very soon.  But, a principle
that assignments or allocations are made for operational need is valid and
technically necessary.  Equally, we need policies and procedure that
interpret this principle in the light of today's protocols and operational
realities, is also valid and necessary, and the whole point of documenting
operational need as principle.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ================================================
>> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
>> ================================================
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130604/843e5dc8/attachment.htm>