[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Thu Jun 5 12:34:20 EDT 2014

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>>> On 6/5/2014 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Personally, I don't believe that IPv4 runout changes the need for policy that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are (re)distributed. I realize and respect that you disagree with this. However, my analysis of the continued need for this policy is not based on the context of ARIN still having IPv4. Obviously I can't authoritatively comment on anyone else's perspective and neither can you.
>> IPv4 runout certainly changes the need for policy that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are distributed *from the ARIN free pool*. Or at least makes any such policy irrelevant unless/until more free pool is generated for IPv4.
> I don't believe that's all that current policy seeks to do. Current policy seeks fairness in who receives IP number resources, whether from the free pool or via transfer.

My definition of fairness, in this context, is that we (the community)
will (within the
justified time frame jitter) run out of IPv4s to
allocate/assign/transfer at about the
same time for those with current need.  I support needs based
as attempting to implement my definition of fairness.  Even
recognizing that existing
policy will be imperfect in practice, and there will always be those
that look to game the
system.  There should be no $MEGACORP$ advantage by being able to
agree to transfer
a 10 years advanced supply, giving them a competitive advantage over
their competitors
or new entrants.  We sink (in IPv4), or swim (in IPv6) together.

btw, I really with more $MEGACORP$s would IPv6 enable their main web sites
to demonstrate (if nothing else) that they *do* get it, and are serious about
moving themselves and their customers forward.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list