[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Wed Jun 12 21:28:41 EDT 2013


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/20130612/ad600893/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list