[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need postARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
Mike Burns
mike at nationwideinc.com
Fri Jun 14 10:45:25 EDT 2013
Hi Kevin,
My comments were particularly to be read in the context of Bill Herrin's
comment about the dearth of /24s on the transfer market and Mr. Ryerse's
inability to qualify for addresses under current ARIN policy. My proposal
seeks to lubricate the market for the purposes of answering the problems
introduced by current policy.
Lest we forget, the most important problem that a needs-free transfer cap
would address is the risk posed to our stewardship of Whois by maintaining
policies which drive address transactions underground. In the related
conversation about principles, the principle of Registration, which RFC-2050
points out is our primary goal, is the only one which is universally
recognized by poll respondents.
I hold that maintaining the needs test for transfers is not necessary for
the secondary goal of conservation and poses risks to our primary
responsibility to maintain an accurate Whois.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Kargel
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:32 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need postARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
I am not aware that anywhere in the goals of ARIN policy is there a goal to
have a "salutary effect on the market". We should not be making ANY policy
with the express or even incidental purpose of supporting the IP market or
IP brokers. If the reason for removing needs tests is to support the
"market" then that is an invalid consideration.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:25 AM
To: Jimmy Hess; bjones at vt.edu
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
Hi Jimmy,
An increased annual fee on transferred addresses would indeed increase the
carrying costs of those addresses.
I suppose this might provide some incentive to return addresses to ARIN, but
I think that it is more likely they would sell them to someone else.
And by definition, if it is an "over" purchase for whatever purpose, the act
will be non-competitive and self-correcting in the long run.
Whether extra addresses are held as a result of overpurchase, implementation
of CGN, lost business, technological change or whatever, the same pressures
will be placed on the holder- the lost opportunity of directing the
otherwise wasted value of the addresses towards more productive purpose.
In addition, the impending transition to IPv6 and the resulting loss in
value of IPv4 addresses provides additional incentive to realize value from
unused address assets.
In any case, rather than impose an overpurchase restriction via the duration
of the justification window, as we do now, I am proposing to limit
overpurchase for every entity to a tiny fraction of the available pool, a
fraction way too small to manipulate the market. I believe that removing the
needs test for most transfers would have a salutary effect on the market for
minimal risk.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:36 PM
To: bjones at vt.edu
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
There could be a risk of overpurchasing, but I would suggest there is a
disincentive for doing so: the cost paid for the resource, AND, the
revenue that could be derived by correcting the overpurchase (transferring
away the overpurchased portion).
Another possibility, one could imagine is, ARIN establishing a "variable
fee schedule" that differentiates transferred resources from "free pool
resources".
Due to the additional costs incurred in managing transferred resources, it
is conceivable that transferred resources could be assessed additional
variable annual
fees as a cost per /24.
With a graduated pricing schedule. Then organizations that were
holding an excessive number, would be incentivized to reduce their
overpurchase, by returning resources.
Perhaps it would make sense in that case to allow transfer recipients to
_choose_ between "immediate justified need" for the entire
allocation or "higher annual cost per IP address".
[snip]
> 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
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Kargel
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:32 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need postARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
I am not aware that anywhere in the goals of ARIN policy is there a goal to
have a "salutary effect on the market". We should not be making ANY policy
with the express or even incidental purpose of supporting the IP market or
IP brokers. If the reason for removing needs tests is to support the
"market" then that is an invalid consideration.
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 8:25 AM
To: Jimmy Hess; bjones at vt.edu
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
Hi Jimmy,
An increased annual fee on transferred addresses would indeed increase the
carrying costs of those addresses.
I suppose this might provide some incentive to return addresses to ARIN, but
I think that it is more likely they would sell them to someone else.
And by definition, if it is an "over" purchase for whatever purpose, the act
will be non-competitive and self-correcting in the long run.
Whether extra addresses are held as a result of overpurchase, implementation
of CGN, lost business, technological change or whatever, the same pressures
will be placed on the holder- the lost opportunity of directing the
otherwise wasted value of the addresses towards more productive purpose.
In addition, the impending transition to IPv6 and the resulting loss in
value of IPv4 addresses provides additional incentive to realize value from
unused address assets.
In any case, rather than impose an overpurchase restriction via the duration
of the justification window, as we do now, I am proposing to limit
overpurchase for every entity to a tiny fraction of the available pool, a
fraction way too small to manipulate the market. I believe that removing the
needs test for most transfers would have a salutary effect on the market for
minimal risk.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:36 PM
To: bjones at vt.edu
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN
run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
On 6/12/13, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
There could be a risk of overpurchasing, but I would suggest there is a
disincentive for doing so: the cost paid for the resource, AND, the
revenue that could be derived by correcting the overpurchase (transferring
away the overpurchased portion).
Another possibility, one could imagine is, ARIN establishing a "variable
fee schedule" that differentiates transferred resources from "free pool
resources".
Due to the additional costs incurred in managing transferred resources, it
is conceivable that transferred resources could be assessed additional
variable annual
fees as a cost per /24.
With a graduated pricing schedule. Then organizations that were
holding an excessive number, would be incentivized to reduce their
overpurchase, by returning resources.
Perhaps it would make sense in that case to allow transfer recipients to
_choose_ between "immediate justified need" for the entire
allocation or "higher annual cost per IP address".
[snip]
> 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
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list