[arin-ppml] Fw: ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4Transfers (fwd)

[Mike Burns]

>> How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
>> helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
>> analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
>> transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
>>
>> What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this
>> idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request
>> accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new
>> no-justification regime?
>>
>> For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>
Hi Bill,

 I chose /16 as a starting point for negotiations because it is a common 
size
 I see in the brokerage business.

 Removing the needs test serves many purposes. One that I have considered is
 the possibility for an Inter-RIR policy with RIPE.
 I think this change at least lays the groundwork for that. I believe that a
 "compatible needs-based policy" would be a match for RIPE up to the point
 where ARIN needs tests would apply, since RIPEs needs test for transfers is
 less rigorous than ARIN's currently. But if ARIN drops the needs test up to
 a certain size, my hope is that the ARIN would recognize that the policies
 are now compatible for transfers lower than that certain size. I understand
 your reluctance to expose the remains of the free pool to possible 
predation
 through rinse-repeat allocations and sales, but the one per year allowance
 inhibits that, and we don't expect the free pool to be there much more than
 a year from now anyway.

 Of course it also answers the needs of those who can't get addresses from
 their upstreams but don't qualify for the /20 minimum, without applying any
 additional draw on the free pool, but instead utilizing already allocated
 but unused space. We had a customer call today on just this issue. He has 
an
 acute need for a /24. His upstream has imposed a limit of 128 addresses.
 What can he do? He can acquire a shell corp with a /24 but those are few 
and
 far between. Absent that, what are his options? Answer is, he can lease the
 addresses or engage in an out-of-policy legacy transfer, both of which
 affect Whois accuracy negatively.

You ask how we can assess the effects of this policy, and I am not sure.
 Perhaps a count of small blocks transferred? If that increases, can we
 ascribe any rise to this policy? Probably not. Aborted 8.2 transfers don't
 apply. Maybe a count of aborted 8.3 transfers and 8.4 transfers?

 Granted that it will be difficult to assess the impact of this policy 
beyond
 the anectodal hallelujahs from those who have been unable to secure
 addresses under current policy. But more important to me is the
 identification and assessment of potential downsides or risks. Are there 
any
 downsides or risks which you feel are important to address?

 Would you support this policy if it were of limited duration and a smaller
 size, as Owen suggested?

 Regards,
 Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>