[arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Jun 5 22:10:21 EDT 2014

My post was in fact the lines below with the single > in front of them.  

Yes I have advocated right-sizing instead of needs testing several times.  Right sizing and needs testing have some similarities and in my opinion are easily confused.  A needs test ends up in a pass fail or yes no outcome and you either get the requested resources or you don’t.  I would add this needs testing can easily be used by the haves to keep the have nots from receiving any resources at all, and in my opinion that is happening.  However with a right-sizing test, the outcome always ends up with an allocation being made (or offered) even if it turns out to only be the size of the current policy Minimum.  This is a huge difference for a small organization and it levels the playing field for smaller organizations!

I realize that an organization might be allocated (or offered) a smaller allocation than requested, but all organizations can at least get the smallest allocation per the current policy minimum - not always the perfect situation but a lot better than zero resources.  Further I don't think this hurts the haves at all (except maybe more competition), and I do not agree that "without needs testing the "haves" would have had it all a long time ago" - as long as right-sizing tests are applied to all.  

I appreciate the discussion.  

Steven L Ryerse
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Santos
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 9:44 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

(Something strange about the quoting below.  I think Steven wrote the stuff with one ">" and Larry wrote the unquoted lines.)

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 lar at mwtcorp.net wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:07:21 +0000
  Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:

> And your statement to me sounds like the haves trying to make it 
> harder for the have nots, so that it is harder for the have nots to 
> compete with the haves.  The current ARIN policies are stacked against 
> a small organization trying to compete with larger ones for resources.  
> In my opinion that is very anti-competitive and I defy you to show me 
> where in the ARIN mission statement et al it says that that ARIN 
> should make it harder for a small organization just starting out to 
> get resources than larger ones.  I repeat that ARIN's mission is to 
> allocate resources and it isn't to find way not to allocate 
> resources!!!

Personally I suspect that without needs testing the "haves" would have had it all a long time ago. 

I have felt the same frustration, as a small provider, trying to meet the 80% requirement can be almost impossible without gaming the system due to numerous small holes in a small allocation. That said, I worry about any company that could purchase a couple of Billion dollars of IPV4. I think I could make a stronger business case for that than some of the purchases/mergers that have happened over the last 10 years. 

I've hoped that IPV6 would eliminate that possibility but so far that hasn't happened. 

I live in a place where there is very little use of much of the licensed radio spectrum. Yet there is none available. Big players have snatched it up to keep from the others. They use it just enough to say they did and then hundreds of miles from here. 

Many of us fear that if need is not considered in the transfer market the little guys will find that none is available at any price. 

Like it or not the big guys have an advantage. Let's make sure that "cornering the market" isn't one of them. 


+1 deregulating a market rarely helps the have-nots.  It usually just
helps the "haves" to have more.

I don't think eliminating the needs requirement would help Steven and
other small operators; I think it would make address space unacquirable
at a reasonable cost.  (Unless there's a secret agenda at work to
promote IPv6 :-)

Steven, are you the person who has proffered the notion of "right-sizing"
as an alternative to needs testing?  I think the determination of the
right size to allocate to an organization is exactly what needs testing
should do.  If you (or anyone else) has specific examples of how needs
testing as currently implemented fails to accomplish this, then I would
be interested in any proposals to fix needs testing to do it right.
(There have been many such proposals in the past and many of them have
been adopted.)  

John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539

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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list