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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Fri Jun 24 14:16:43 EDT 2016

[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> 
>>  On 16-06-22 06:47 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>>>  The point of 8.5.2 is to clarify that the community believes that 
>>>  addresses are to be used on operational networks, not as resources 
>>>to be
>>>  held for some other purpose (e.g. financial speculation).  We ask 
>>>  an officer of the organization to attest to ensure that the 
>>>  understands the nature of the transaction and doesn't commit its $ 
>>>  support of other goals.  I believe having it in section 8 helps
>>>  organizations clearly understand the requirements for transfer.  
>>>  They don't have to hunt around in other sections for other
>>>  requirements.) I, personally, believe that the base requirement for 
>>>  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 
>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.
>John Curran
>President and CEO
>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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list