[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)

[John Santos]

On Thu, 28 May 2015, John Curran wrote:

> On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > 
> > My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted moves of addresses to different regions staying with the same organization. However, if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't merely use that as a way to move addresses o
> ut of flip protection to then flip them to another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive transfer policy.
> > 
> > So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them in the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an external party for at least 12 months.
> 
> That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing operation of 
> another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy to that effect.  
> 
> To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally coordinated transfer 
> policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer policy explicit 
> in this regard in determination of compatibility.

If the penalty were that if you transfered out of your organization those
addresses in less than 12 months, you could not receive new addresses
(either from free pool or as the result of a directed transfer) UNDER ARIN
until the 12 months were up, there would be no requirement of any change
to any other RIR's rules nor any requirement of coordination with other
RIRs.

This could be handled under needs assessment.  When a recipient comes to
ARIN saying they need X addresses and currently have less than Y%
available from our current total of Z addresses, ARIN would count
addresses transfered out within the last 12 months as still being
included in Z.  Addresses transfered to another RIR and then out of
the org would prevent the recipient from returning to the well
repeatedly.  But an org that messed up its planning once, got too
many addresses and then decided to sell them would be okay.

If they messed up twice (announce need in January and acquire addresses,
decide in Feb that they don't really need them any more due to changed
business plans or conditions and sell them, then turn around again in
March to get more addresses) they would either be utterly incompetent,
having screwed up their planning 3 times in a year, or they would be
trying to game the system and their business plan is to flip addresses,
not to provide an Internet service.



-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539