[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8

[Morizot Timothy S]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Huberman [mailto:David.Huberman at microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:22 AM
> 
> With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no "pool limitations at the time
> of allocation" as there are no allocations.  ARIN's role in IPv4 is primarily
> the third goal above: registry accuracy.
> 
> That's why I advocate removing needs-basis from transfers in a post-
> exhaustion world.  There's no pool to manage[1], so the only OFFICIAL
> mandate ARIN has from the network operator community is to run an
> accurate registry.

I've actually been consistently in favor of IPv4 policies over the past couple of years that seemed likely to exhaust the IPv4 free pool sooner rather than later, so I have no real objection to altering the existing rules. I'm not convinced that eliminating needs basis in a post-exhaustion world would lead to fairer utilization or more competitiveness, but I would probably favor such a change since it would likely make IPv4 less palatable more quickly. (Of course, I believe the global inter-rir policy has a needs basis aspect so I think removing all needs basis from transfers would mean ARIN could no longer do inter-rir transfers, but that's a separate issue.)

They still have to protect against hijacking, which is a process that requires active regulation, even without needs basis for IPv4 transfers.

And, of course, there will be a need for at least some sort of needs basis on the IPv6 side going forward.

So I'm not necessarily againt simplifying policy in rational ways or to achieve clearly expressed aims. I don't think there's very much that's going to convince legacy holders who aren't already actively engaged to improve their registry information, though. That part of the IPv4 registry is and will almost certainly remain a swamp. I think it's more productive to focus on an accurate IPv6 registry and move on.

Scott