[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification
David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Tue Sep 23 10:38:19 EDT 2014
You're right, of course. If I'm going to advocate that the current "24-month planning horizon" is good, then I have to defend why ARIN staff looking at ANY forward-looking data is good for network operations. But doesn't that also mean those who support looking at backward-facing data also have to defend that position? The point I'm understanding from your reply is there is an argument to be made that ARIN should automate parts of the transfer process to make handling fast and help promote accuracy in Whois (and any other benefits that come along with automation). And that human review of business plans and previous use impedes automation.
Is that the gist of your reply? Or have I misunderstood you?
David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:53 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Kevin Blumberg; arin-ppml at arin.net List (arin-ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification
On Sep 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> No one participating in the RIR system should be prevented from doing
> any bona fide transfer. In the 8.3 world, network operators must be
> free to buy and sell IP addresses as it fits their business plans.
The above premise implies a policy regime which must always confirm that
any transfer of IPv4 space is warranted based on some corresponding needs-
assessment of "business plans"...
Given that these forward-looking plans can change, what exactly is the
value in confirming that the transfer size "fits" with the particular
plans? What function is served by doing so?
> If we can agree on that, can
> we agree that any mechanism which forces a company to do multiple
> transfers or buy multiple blocks is a disservice to the community?
By any mechanism, do you mean like something such as a "24-month planning
horizon"? To put any limit on amount that can be transferred based on a
specific planning horizon will always result in multiple transfers over a
longer period. Is that a disservice to the community?
>> Do you see (per the proposal intent) any opportunities for
>> simplification of present transfer policy, either by changing the existing proposal or otherwise?
> I'm not going to say yes or not, wrt 2014-20. I don't know yet.
Many have advocated elimination of needs-assessment for transfers (and
2014-20 appears to do that for several situations); it seems conflicted
to argue for less hurdles for transfers, but also that transfers should
be sized to "fit business plans", i.e. committing ARIN and requestors
to time-intensive scrutiny of business and technical plans, as occurs in
the course of needs-assessment.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML