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

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Wed Apr 30 20:10:58 EDT 2014

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.


> ----- 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list