[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

[Mike Burns]

Hi Blake,

We can be wistful for the lack of progress of RPKI or the fact that 
addresses are regularly routed for customers who are not the Whois 
registrants, but we are powerless to change those things, community-wide.

We are a community of private network operators for the most part. We are 
stakeholders tasked primarily with maintaining a registry of uniqueness of 
IP addresses. We need to ask ourselves whether the purported benefits of 
maintaining a needs-test for every change of registrant in Whois is worth 
the risk to the registry and the expenditure of fungible ARIN staff 
resources.

I elucidated one such risk, which is the risk of un-registered acquisitions 
of shell corporations which are incentivized by the lack of a needs test. 
John Curran acknowledged this risk.

I offered an example of one of the few publicly demonstrable cases of this 
in Whois, related to the public information surrounding the Microsoft/Nortel 
deal. I am aware of many more but can not disclose them.

People seek to frame this issue as if it were this question: "Should we 
change the rules just because some people will break them?"

My answer to that is yes, of course we should, unless the rule provides some 
overriding benefit.

So my question for the community is "What is the benefit we realize by 
insisting on ARIN team review of every single transfer, down to /24, and is 
it worth ARIN ticket time delay and the risk of decreased Whois accuracy?"

And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an 
acceptable balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of 
the needs test?

Regards,
Mike Burns






-----Original Message----- 
From: Blake Dunlap
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:05 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

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.
_______________________________________________
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.