[arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

[Scott Leibrand]

I'm thinking about things like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets awarded
all of the defendant's "assets" in question, and the plaintiff then asks
ARIN to transfer the IPv4 defendant's /32 to them.  If ARIN simply doesn't
transfer /32s, then they can tell the judge "I'm sorry, but we just can't
do that, and here's why (point to policy)".  Without such a policy, they
have to make the much trickier "that's not an asset" argument.

IIUIC, exactly that scenario has happened several times.  If so, then I
expect that if we get to the point of doing a Staff and Legal assessment on
this, they'll bring this up.

But regardless of the legal piece, I see no upside, and quite a bit of
downside, to allowing IPv4 /32 transfers.  I think we need to move the
limit, not remove it.

-Scott


On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Hi Scott,
>
>
>
> If I understand your argument - and I'm not sure I do, sorry - you're
> saying that it's good to have a policy that SPs can point to and say, "no,
> you can't take that /32 we assigned to you with you"?  If that's what
> you're arguing, then why is a /24 any different than a /32? We see /24s
> assigned by SPs to their customers all the time.
>
>
>
> Secondly, if this is your argument, why is this not a matter for legal and
> contracts, rather than a number registry which is not appointed by the IETF
> or NANOG or any other engineering body as the regulator of what size block
> is acceptable to regulate? I'm not being flippant and I'm not trying to be
> a jerk.  I think this kind of reasoning (and 1000 apologies if I
> misunderstood your argument) is way outside the purview of ARIN.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> /david
>
>
>
> *David R Huberman*
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00 AM
> *To:* David Huberman
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block
> Size Requirements
>
>
>
> I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).
>
>
>
> However, IMO having a /32 IPv4 minimum transfer size (no limit) would be a
> bad idea.  There have been several cases where entities who are completely
> ignorant of Internet routing think they have some "right" to a particular
> /32, and wish to transfer it.  IMO, having *some* minimum transfer size is
> a good way to prevent such efforts from being imposed on the rest of us.
>  (If ARIN can point to policy saying "that simply isn't allowed", they're
> in a much better position than trying to argue the particulars of each
> case.)
>
>
>
> I would have no problem reducing the minimum IPv4 transfer size, just not
> all the way to /32.  So I oppose the proposal as written, but could support
> a revised version.
>
>
>
> -Scott
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM, David Huberman <
> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> As the author, I proposed this policy because it is not ARIN's role to
> artificially regulate minimum block sizes. I feel this is especially in a
> post-exhaustion world, which is very quickly coming.
>
> The economics of routing are the same today as they were 14 years ago when
> Bill Manning taught me an important principal: people will pay to route
> whatever you pay them to route. Moreover, there is no technical reason I
> can think of to require a /24 as the minimum TRANSFERRABLE size.  If two
> parties wish to exchange smaller prefixes, I cannot see a technical
> motivation for ARIN policy to prohibit such a transaction.
>
> I ask you to support this policy on principle, or educate us why removing
> the minimum transferrable block size is harmful to the technical operations
> of the internet.
>
> /david
>
> David R Huberman
> Microsoft Corporation
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:18 AM
> To: ARIN-PPML List
> Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size
> Requirements
>
> There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to
> have more input from a broader cross-section of the community.
>
> At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this
> proposal for lack of support by the community. If you support this action,
> please speak up. If you support this proposal, then it is vital that you
> speak up.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140319/02a33220/attachment.htm>