[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:40 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:25 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> Fairness. Free trade is and must be a two-way street. Don't have that
>> if we let someone pay lip service to free trade and then act as a
>> proxy for a third party who's gaming the system.
>
> Bill -
>
>   Could you elaborate?     A party X in ARIN region wishes to transfer to
>   party Y in region “R”.    You wish to predicate ARIN’s ability to process
>   such a transfer on whether or not other parties in region “R” are allowed
>   to transfer to folks in the ARIN region?

Hi John,

Plus recursion. I don't want to see Y in R acting as a proxy for Z in
S in order to evade S's noncompliance.

If we're going to permit ARIN region resources to be played on a
global field, we've a right to at least insist it be a level field.


>   How is this fair to “X” or “Y”,
>   who simply are trying to get resources to where they are needed?

Party X has no shortage of other candidate buyers while party Y can
petition his registry to join the "free trade pact" if he finds
fairness as desirable a trait as I do.  Meanwhile parties A through W
aren't placed at unfair disadvantaged by the behavior of Y's registry.



>>> Is /25 "unusually small”?
>>
>> The nice thing about my way is that ARIN need never make that call. It
>> need only warn registrants and then let them make the call.
>
> Registrants will make that call, but ISP’s have often looked to the RIRs
> to take the lead in determining what block size makes sense, and then
> made their routing decisions accordingly.

I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize the _failed_ experiment at
having ISPs set route filters based on the RIRs' specified minimum
assignment size in a /8. The only filter size that stuck came from the
number of bits in a class-C netmask, something the registries had
nothing to do with.


> In allowing smaller block sizes,
> isn’t that an implicit endorsement that ISPs should consider routing such?

I'm not sold on that argument but I don't dispute it either.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>