[arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7
bjones at vt.edu
Thu Oct 8 16:31:42 EDT 2015
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones <bjones at vt.edu> wrote:
> I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources
> to sit idle either. At the same time arbitrarily handing out large blocks
> of resources without any real show of need allows for possible misuse of
> the resources by those who would hang on to them to get a better price or
> for whatever reason they want.
> The IPv4 free pool is now empty, and there are no more large blocks to
> hand out. Is this still a concern when all blocks must be acquired via
> transfer? If so, can you explain why that's more of a concern under the
> proposed policy than under current policy?
The "large blocks" reference I used is probably not the appropriate
wording, but routed blocks matter and should be documented appropriately in
order to help keep the Internet routing tables as accurate as possible. I
still believe some show of need should be present.
Either way the resources sit idle. I am for a reasonable amount of
> justification for the amount of resources that can be consumed in a
> reasonable time period. Defining reasonable in the last two sentences and
> coming to agreement may be the crux of the matter.
> If the organization was mistaken about how many or how fast they would use
> the resources, then the process should be able to easily accommodate
> transfer, selling, or returning them as long as they follow procedures to
> ensure that documentation records of the resources can be appropriately
> updated for the good of the Internet.
> In the end there is really not a good way to prevent unused addresses
> sitting idle. It is up to the recipients of justified resources to be good
> stewards and use them appropriately and hopefully transfer, sell, or return
> them if they no longer need them.
> Totally agreed.
> On Aug 20, 2015 9:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> On 8/20/2015 1:04 PM, Brian Jones wrote:
>> I agree with this simplified requirement but would even be willing to
>> accept a 50% within 12 months and 75% in 24 months requirement. Two years
>> is a long time to tie up valuable resources that are not being used. IMHO
>> I do not understand this reasoning. There is no more free pool. If Org A
>> is not using "valuable resources" and they are transferred to Org B who was
>> mistaken about how fast they will use them, then Org B is also not using
>> "valuable resources". But if instead Org A can't transfer them, then Org B
>> doesn't get them and Org A still has "valuable resources" which are "tied
>> up". They're "tied up" not being used either way... and ARIN can't do
>> anything about it.
>> If you really want to make sure that these resources don't sit unused,
>> make it so that after Org A transfers to Org B then if Org B doesn't use
>> all of them, Org B can sell what they're not using.
>> Matthew Kaufman
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML