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

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Tue Jun 18 20:18:05 EDT 2013


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
>
>    Hi Jason,
>
> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free,
> which provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities
> seeking to purchase addresses at a much higher relative price.
>
>
> Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor has
> anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it.
>


There are any number of anecdotal examples of people complaining loudly
they could not get space, and are not being allowed to simply buy
free-market space they could theoretically pay for.

It is not clear if this is the extent of the cases of problem, or just the
tip of the iceberg.

What bothers me about your argument and the ARIN default position is that
it is not helping resolve the question of what extent the problem is
widespread vs anecdotal.

In the times leading up to End Times (v4 edition), default position was
reasonable.  In End Times (v4 edition) I think we owe the community a
deeper investigation.

I for one find ARIN-evading dark transfers and the like - which I am
anecdotally aware of, and many others are reporting similarly - a sign that
there's something seriously wrong.

I can't prove that.


What can we do to adequately investigate, and answer the question for
everyone's satisfaction?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130618/158599df/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list