[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region
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?
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
> example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is
> to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size. While
> 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
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
More information about the ARIN-PPML