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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Fri Jun 5 16:56:34 EDT 2015


On 6/5/2015 5:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>    Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived 
> from the IPv4
>    allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should 
> determine those
>    parties who should be issued IPv4 address space.  This is very 
> reasonable
>    assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional 
> free pool,
>    but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same 
> determination
>    when the resources are coming from another party.
>

It *does* make sense to do a similar needs test of transfers as long as 
there is also a free pool, specifically to discourage folks from 
transferring addresses away and backfilling them from the free pool.

Interestingly, now that we've made transfer have a different horizon 
than allocation, we do see organizations choosing to go that route *even 
though* addresses are available from the free pool.

>    If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for 
> the IPv4
>    transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying 
> to understand
>    everyone’s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork 
> for simpler
>    transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying 
> basis, and thus
>    has an much easier time supporting.
>

Agreed. Would be nice to know why there is a transfer policy, and why it 
might have limitations.

>    So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an 
> IPv4 transfer
>    policy, and why?    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.

I don't think that's any of ARIN's business. ARIN can issue blocks of 
whatever size it wants, and networks can choose (or not) to route them.

>
>    Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one 
> aspect of the
>    IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any 
> other
>    perceived transfer policy requirements?

I do think that a transfer policy should require that the transferring 
party be able to show that those addresses are theirs to transfer.

And I do think that holding transfers when there's a dispute is probably 
a good idea.

Matthew Kaufman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150605/0a9928bd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list