[arin-ppml] Draft policy ARIN-2013-1 Section 8.4 Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs

[David Farmer]

On 3/20/13 18:14 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:19 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Ok, explain to me how it huts the community if I have an extra ASN and justified need for IP addresses and my friend has justified need for an ASN and extra IP addresses, and we want to trade.  This sound like a match made in heaven, as contrived as it is.  But, as I described it no money changes hands and resources get used more efficiently, sounds like good stewardship to me.  But you seem to want to stand in the way of it.  Because unless the two transactions are atomic and linked the first will go through and the second will be blocked by the language you support.
>
> That wouldn't be prohibited.

Ok, I transfer my ASN to my friend, he receives it.  He is now 
prohibited from being the source of the transfer of his IP addresses to 
me, because he just received a ASN transfer.  Unless the two 
transactions can be linked and processed together at exactly the same 
time, the second transaction violates your clause.  And, I don't think 
there is anyway to link the two transactions.  Furthermore, if I agreed 
with my friend I would transfer my ASN now, and he would transfer his IP 
addresses next week after he frees them up then there is no realistic 
way for ARIN to link the transactions.

> What would be prohibited would be if you got IP addresses from ARIN just a few months ago and then traded them to your friend for the ASN you should have gotten instead of the IP addresses.

That's prohibited under the language Scott proposes. I would be the 
source of resources of the SAME TYPE that I just got from ARIN less that 
12 months ago.

>> As long as justified operational need is being fulfilled, why do we the community need to stick our nose in things.  There our those that believe maintaining justified operational need, is sticking the community's nose to for into things already.
>
> Yes, there are those that believe ARIN should have no policy role at all. I don't agree with them.
>
>> I support the prohibition from being the source of resources after having and received resources (of the same type) within the last 12 months to discourage gaming the operational need requirement.  But, your operational need for one type of resources has nothing with your operational need for other types of resources.
>
> In reality, there is little or no operational need for ASN transfers to begin with. They are strictly a vanity proposition. There is no shortage of ASNs available from ARIN.

This is where we disagree, but that is an old argument.

>> If someone received an IPv6 allocation, successfully deployed it, and then was somehow able to reduce their need for IPv4; your interpretation would prevent them from transferring their no longer needed IPv4 resources to someone else.
>
> Fair and valid point. I would support amending things so that acquisition of IPv6 resources is not a consideration.

So, IPv6 not should be linked with IPv4 or ASNs, but IPv4 and ASNs 
should be?  Why?  It makes no sense!

>> Owen, your wrong.
>
> Merely because I disagree with you does not make me wrong.

Sorry, I spoke badly, it's wrong to link the different types of resources.

> Owen



-- 
================================================
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
================================================