[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Thu Jun 13 13:33:24 EDT 2013 

See inline comments.
--
Brian


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:

>   Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> No doubt a more vigorous transfer market will lead to more router
> misconfigurations.
> I think a knowledgeable middle-man could help mitigate that, and would
> take business from the guy getting into the game without networking
> knowledge you mention below.
>

Hopefully that would be the case but no guarantees if there are no
requirements other than dollars.


>
> There is real uncertainty when dealing with the registries. A recent
> transaction took nearly a month to complete, most of which was spent in the
> back and forth of a justification. It’s always a fingers-crossed situation
> for buyer and seller. One broker told me she does the “happy dance” every
> time a deal makes it through justification.
>

I agree that there needs to be an easier way to make reasonable transfers
of addresses.


>
> Your point about moving to IPv6 is important, because that move is the
> 800lb gorilla in the room.
> Nobody knows when the move will happen or  how long it will take, but when
> it happens it is bound to affect IPv4 prices negatively.
> Who would speculate under these conditions?
> What if we limited his total purchases to a /12, or his aggregate holdings
> to a /12, otherwise he would be needs-tested?
>

A /12 is a lot of address space, but it seems to be a reasonable break
point for a lot of the responders on this list. My hope is that ardent
networkers will push toward IPv6 instead of clinging to legacy addressing.



>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM
> *To:* Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> *Cc:* Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> ; arin-ppml at arin.net
>  *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
> ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
>
> Mike,
> See inline comments.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>wrote:
>
>> **
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> I understand that there is a danger of overpurchasing (by whomever's
>> definition) that comes from the removal of a needs test for transfers.
>> In most cases we rely on the price of the addresses to provide some check
>> on this practice, as it would for the overpurchasing of any other asset a
>> corporation may choose to invest in. I think we should leave those
>> definition of what an overpurchase is to the buyers, who will have a range
>> of intended purposes, projected growth rates, planning horizons and other
>> considerations. At least with a cap of some sort we limit the overpurchase
>> risk to overall address usage efficiency.
>>
>> A vibrant market is one of the best mechanisms to prevent what you
>> mention-the problem of addresses sitting idle while real need exists.
>>
>
>
> At the risk of contradicting myself, I'm not sure a vibrant market is the
> *best *answer for the networking community, but I don't disagree that
> what you propose would invigorate the market. See my comments below about
> network stability.
>
>
>
>>  As the price of addresses rise and transactional roadblocks diminish,
>> idle addresses will come into the market. As the need rises, the price will
>> rise, driving efficiencies in the utilization of addresses and wringing the
>> most efficiency through the highest and best use of the addresses.
>>
>
> I would agree that as demand rises the prices will increase, but maybe,
> just maybe most folks will be considering the move to IPv6 where these
> contentions and price increases will not exist.
>
>
>>
>> And as I mentioned, due to the needs test requirement, these early IPv4
>> address transactions almost always involve neophyte parties on either side
>> of the transaction, separated by language, culture, and an ocean. Often
>> these parties are not familiar with their own RIR policy, much less the
>> policy of another region. Most of the time the decision to sell or buy
>> addresses has to overcome corporate inertia and antipathy to new, unusual,
>> and unlikely-to-be-repeated transactions. This means education about the
>> RIRs and their position squarely in the middle of the buyer and the seller.
>>
>> How likely is this transaction to occur for small allocations like the
>> /24 needed by Mr. Ryerse of this thread?
>>
>> I contend that removing the needs requirement will allow for less
>> uncertainty in what is currently a fraught process for both buyers and
>> sellers, leading to more transactions, more price stability, and simpler
>> transactions for all parties, including ARIN, who will avoid the time and
>> effort of needs testing transfers.
>>
>>
>
> I appreciate your contention, and it is possible that some of the things
> you mention may actually pan out, but I do not agree with the "less
> uncertainty" part of your statement. I would contend removing all needs
> assessment would create more uncertainty by promoting that anyone can get
> in the game of brokering IP addresses regardless of their knowledge about
> networking. Also by increasing the amount of times IP addresses get swapped
> around the Internet could increase the possibility for networking
> instability and router misconfiguration issues.
>
> --
> Brian
>
>
>
>>  Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu>
>> *To:* Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>>  *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net ; Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:28 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
>> ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> I suppose it is just my old school thinking that you should be at least
>> "this tall" to ride the ride. Given your explanations below I could relax
>> my requirements for demonstrating technical support need for transfers. I
>> actually didn't realize we were only considering transfers and not the
>> remaining free blocks, so thank you for clarifying that.
>>
>> It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur when a
>> bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of any
>> structured needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses could sit
>> idle and unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really IPv6 should be the
>> best solution for those needing addresses moving forward any way... :)
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2013 3:15 PM, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Brian,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your input.
>> >
>> > May I ask why you think there should be a requirement for demonstration
>> of minimal technical need for transfers, if the reason is not to prevent
>> hoarding and price manipulation?
>> >
>> > Remember we are talking only about transfers, and not the intelligent
>> allocation of the remaining IPv4 free pool, and that money will be the
>> determining factor in who receives IPv4 addresses under the current
>> transfer policy, so long as the needs test is met. That is, we are already
>> at a point where the highest bidder will get the addresses, irrespective of
>> what his justified need for the addresses is, just that he has met the RIR
>> need test.
>> >
>> > I have been operating under the assumption that the underlying reason
>> for requiring the needs test for transfers which are already priced is to
>> prevent a buyer without needs from damaging the market through hoarding or
>> cornering. I understand that many people simply do not like the idea that
>> address blocks can be bought and sold, and that money has any influence on
>> who gets addresses, but we are beyond that now.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Brian Jones
>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:54 PM
>> > To: Mike Burns
>> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
>> run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe that was utopian thinking on my part. It would be nice to
>> disregard what happens with IPv4 space but that seems to invite some sort
>> of chaos and the last thing needed is more chaos...
>> >
>> > Intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is important in my
>> opinion.
>> >
>> > From Dave Farmer's email earlier:
>> > "I think the more important issue is an appropriate criteria on the
>> lower-end and for new enterants, the current slow-start for IPv4 isn't
>> going to work, post-ARIN free pool.  Yes, I know eliminating need
>> alltogether eliminates that problem, but I'm not sure I can get myself all
>> the way there.  I'd like to see some minimal technical criteria that
>> entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and more
>> than just that they have the money to do so.  Maybe its just as simple as
>> demonstrating efficient use of at least a /24.  If you can't do that then
>> you can only buy a /24, then you utilize it and you qualify for bigger
>> blocks. "
>> >
>> > Regardless of whether the size blocks discussed is agreeable or not, I
>> do agree wth the part about the need for "...minimal technical criteria
>> that entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and
>> more than just that they have the money to do so."
>> >
>> > (Of course I support the idea that we all move to IPv6!) :)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brian
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Brian, Matthew, and Martin,
>> >>
>> >> Can I take your plus ones to indicate support of the cap even in the
>> face of the shell company issue?
>> >> (As well as support of the idea that we should all move to IPv6.)
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Mike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Brian Jones
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:03 AM
>> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out
>> (was:Re:Against 2013-4)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM, cb.list6 <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Jun 11, 2013 7:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > When will we start caring about IPv6 and start ignoring IPv4???
>> Who cares if people set up shells to acquire v4 space from others? Let 'em,
>> and get v6 deployed already.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> CB
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>>
>> >>> -M
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Brian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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/20130613/7151f0cb/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list