[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Blake Dunlap]

I would actually prefer to find a way to resolve the problem of
entities not caring about their whois being
accurate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H resources being properly registered to
them. It's rather pointless to have any rules without them actually
mattering.

RPKI had hope, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

-Blake

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Yes, David, an organization can be a bad actor and tie up excess resources
> without transferring them in violation of the spirit and intent of the
> policy.
>
> Or, you could recognize that the intent of the policy and the reason for
> that policy is to make those addresses available to other entities with a
> more immediate need and behave in the spirit of the community.
>
> We can’t make the letter of the law force all organizations to be good
> actors. It’s just not practical. The best we can do is provide policy that
> expresses the general intent of the community and hope that the majority of
> people and organizations are good actors.
>
> So while your ability to circumvent the intent of the policy within the
> “letter of the law” is not in the interest of the community, compliance with
> the spirit and intent of the policy is, in fact good for the operator
> community. Of course, it is inevitably up to each organization whether to
> act as a good citizen of the community or not. This is true even in cases
> where the policy is iron clad and there are certainly no shortage of
> examples of bad actors throughout history.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 12:31 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> We had a discussion today at NANOG in the ARIN PPC about needs-basis in 8.3
> transfers.
>
> I’d like to state the following, and then let’s see where the discussion
> takes us:
>
> My team runs an AS. And yep, we’re a pretty big company.  We rely on IPv4
> today for most of our numbering, and will continue to do so for the next
> couple of years.[1]  In the coming year, when we can’t get space from ARIN
> or other RIRs, we have to turn to the market for our IP address needs.   We
> may choose to buy more than a 2 year supply, because it may make business
> sense for us to do so.   ARIN policy, however, only allows us to take the IP
> addresses we buy and transfer the portion which represents a 2 year need.
> The rest will remain in the name of whoever sold the IP addresses to us.
>
> Why is this result good for the operator community?  Wouldn’t it be better
> if ARIN rules allowed us to transfer into our name all the IP addresses
> which we now own?
>
> Regards,
> /david
>
> [1] We’re working on increasing IPv6 presence in our network and our
> products, but large corporations move slowly ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.