[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)

[Mike Burns]

Hi Andrew,

Yeah, you're right, my bad.
I thought there was a limit on the recipient, too.

If there is enough interest in pursuing this policy change, I suppose 
language can be added that restricts needs-free transfers to once per year.
It was my intention that such a limit be in place.
Can we consider, for future discussion, that such language is included in 
the proposal?
I will submit a changed proposal tomorrow with a limit of one needs-free 
transfer per year, like this:

"For block sizes of /16 and smaller and for recipients who have not engaged 
in a transfer during the previous year, etc."

Regards,
Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 
Transfers (Sandra Brown)


> On 4/30/2014 4:56 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I don't understand what the problem is.
>> Are you saying that a recipient who wanted more than a /16 but was
>> unwilling to demonstrate need would create separate entities?
>
> Separate entities I don't believe are needed, just slice up the block in
> to smaller blocks, and then transfer the smaller blocks. (If you wanted
> you could get tricky with the bit-math so the sliced up blocks can't be
> aggregated into a larger block)
>
>> Remember only one transfer per year.
>>
> My read is that the one year restriction is only on the source entity
> and it only prevents them from receiving addresses within that period,
> not from doing additional transfers out.
>
> Andrew
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net>
>> To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small
>> IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)
>>
>>
>>> On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
>>>> BUT:  With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it
>>>> would take a lot of transfers to hoard.  It would take 256 transfers to
>>>> stockpile a /8.  This is the 2nd means to prevent hoarding.  Most
>>>> companies wanting that many IP's would simply do needs justification.
>>> It seems trivial to me to divide a /8 into /16s or any other smaller
>>> block so I could transfer it without doing the needs justification.  I
>>> could write a script for the transfer templates and just send them off.
>>> Once the legwork for the first transfer is complete, the rest should
>>> just flow right through.  Nothing I see in the current text or policy
>>> prevents someone from taking a larger block and slicing it up to get
>>> under the /16 limit.  Since most of the brokers are out speculating that
>>> these blocks have significant value it seems clear that if the large
>>> players need them they will just be paying a staff person a few extra
>>> hours to manage this overhead.
>>>
>>> Does the current policy need to change?  Yes.  Do I think this policy
>>> proposal is the right answer, No.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>