[arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 21, 2014, at 15:48 , Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> 2014-14 calls for a /16 limit.
> You expect some organization to advertise they will buy a /16, and then just change names and prosecute a series of transactions, each requiring a new ORG-ID. You know, there are a growing group of people who are striving every day to advertise the same thing. Brokers like me. We have to balance the advertising costs with the deal profits. There is no secret place where you can place an ad and magically find enough /16 sellers to change this market. And have sellers be serially faked into believing they are talking to separately spun-up organizations. And these organizations, though legally separate, are shells which are to collude under the control of some existing entity with billions of dollars to spend? An entity who is not afraid of driving us faster towards IPv6 and a zero value to IPv4? I deal with ARIN quite a bit, and I don't for one minute believe that they could start seeing ORG-IDS spun up, and then each receiving a needs-free transfer, repeated thousands of times, and fail to notice it. Nor do I believe it could conceivably happen in any sudden timeframe. In fact, the whole idea is just inconceivable.
> 
> Call me naive, but I would just speculate in RIPE. Maybe pick up some of those multiple /8s gathering dust? Save the creation of about 512 new dummy puppet corporations for /16s?

There aren't that many /8s in RIPE to pick up. The vast majority of /8s that were issued as /8s are under ARIN management, so that simply doesn't hold water.

> But wait, the evidence in RIPE, after dropping the needs-test, and the short experience in APNIC, when they dropped the needs-test, does not support your speculation speculation.

There's a lot less underutilized space available for speculation in the RIPE region (and APNIC for that matter), so perhaps that's one reason to believe that things might be different between the regions.

Owen