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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Fri Jun 5 08:52:40 EDT 2015

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>    So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4
> transfer policy, and why?

Hi John,

My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the
existence of a transfer policy.

Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their
networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the
current owner of those business elements.

Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently
reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to
another's higher-value applications.

Value being in the view of the two respective resource holders, not
some wacky top-down definition.

>    I will get things going with a potential
> less-contentious
>    example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is
> necessary
>    to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While
> the
>    ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30’s suddenly
>    appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any
> benefit in
>    creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to the
> Internet if
>    ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to start with the
underlying need for ARIN to have a transfer policy and drill down
later. Minimum block size is a secondary objective we might want
addressing policy in general (including a transfer policy) to achieve.
It's not specific to transfer policy and doesn't drive the need for
transfer policy.

Bill Herrin

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list