[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

[Matthew Wilder]

It's probably a good time to stop the Titanic reference.  Sure IPv6 deployment has reached 12% globally, but my most optimistic projections show that IPv4 is going to be relevant for a half decade more from now.  I think the Titanic sunk in less time if I'm not mistaken.

Transfer policies are going to be the most stable source of IPv4 addresses post-depletion so it does make good sense to have good policies for those organizations who need it.

mw

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Kaufman
Sent: June 24, 2016 11:17 AM
To: John Curran; Michael Peddemors
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

[Top-posting because the specifics don't matter]

Deck chairs. Titanic. If y'all would go deploy the worldwide native IPv6 Internet, none of what happens to IPv4 - including it all being bought up by "evil speculators" - matters one bit. The amount of time spent discussing IPv4 policy in the past few months, never mind the amount of hand-wringing about possible outcomes if the policy is "exploited" by someone is probably sufficient to have just built the replacement that I'm told doesn't suffer from any of these issues. Among other things, the "little guys" that needs assessment is supposedly protecting (despite ample evidence that /8s are getting locked up outside of policy by large organizations with perceived need) can go get all the IPv6 space they need, right now, without any trouble.

Is there a way to submit a proposal to the policy development process itself to block any and all future policy changes that impact IPv4 so we can just vote on that and then stop this nonsense?

Matthew Kaufman

------ Original Message ------
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Michael Peddemors" <michael at linuxmagic.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: 6/24/2016 3:58:03 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: 
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

>On Jun 23, 2016, at 7:58 PM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
>wrote:
>>
>>  On 16-06-22 06:47 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>>>  The point of 8.5.2 is to clarify that the community believes that
>>>IPv4
>>>  addresses are to be used on operational networks, not as resources 
>>>to be
>>>  held for some other purpose (e.g. financial speculation).  We ask 
>>>that
>>>  an officer of the organization to attest to ensure that the 
>>>organization
>>>  understands the nature of the transaction and doesn't commit its $ 
>>>in
>>>  support of other goals.  I believe having it in section 8 helps
>>>  organizations clearly understand the requirements for transfer.  
>>>(e.g.
>>>  They don't have to hunt around in other sections for other
>>>  requirements.) I, personally, believe that the base requirement for 
>>>any
>>>  transfer is that the organization intend to use it on an 
>>>operational
>>>  network.
>>
>>  Only concern I have, is that it has no real teeth.. You can always 
>>'make' it operational, we have seen recent allotments simply rented 
>>out to spammers who want virgin IP space.. boom.. now it is 
>>used/operational
>
>Michael -
>
>    That particular case wouldn’t qualify, as they would have to detail 
>their usage of
>    the IP address space on their own operational networks (if there is 
>a different
>    intent of the policy, the language should be changed to make that 
>quite clear.)
>
>    I do believe such a provision would have significant teeth with 
>respect to inhibiting
>    IP address blocks as a viable large scale investment opportunity.   
>While those
>    of questionable repute may want work around such provisions, it 
>would be rather
>    difficult to establish a formal vehicle (i.e. fund) for investment 
>in IP resource blocks
>    based on a requirement for the necessary representations and the 
>associated risk
>    of loss of the entire investment in cases of fraud.   Other than 
>that circumstance,
>    I agree that it would be fairly straightforward for most operating 
>companies to make
>    reasonable representations based on anticipated needs without 
>significant concern.
>
>Thanks!
>/John
>
>John Curran
>President and CEO
>ARIN
>
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>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:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.