[arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Tue Jan 31 11:27:32 EST 2017


Taking the abuse example above of an organization with a /8 that is is 90% utilized, 

the organization would need to transfer in a /16.  

Then the organization would need to put 32,768 of the new IPs into service, 

or renumber the use of 32,768 of IPs from the older IP space to the new space.

 

I argue that need to show growth or the renumbering of usage into the new IP space 

is of sufficient pain to avoid abuse by organizations that don't actually need the IP space.

 

__Jason

 

 

 

Hi Jason,

 

I argue that the need to pay money for IP space is sufficient pain to avoid abuse by organizations that don’t actually need IP space.  Also any /8 owners have deep pockets and could easily utilize the various policy workarounds which are available, like leases and options. And anybody interested in receiving IP space they don’t need is free to open a RIPE account and do just that. Except nobody does.

 

I support the policy (the re-write and the inclusion of 2016-3) but bemoan the unnecessary complexity required to keep an anachronistic needs test in place in the face of clear evidence from RIPE that it is only there to assuage unsubstantiated fears of hoarding and speculation.  

 

APNIC is considering ending needs tests now, but retaining the RIPE-type language only to ensure ARIN sourced addresses are “needs-tested”, ahem.

 

Regards,

Mike Burns

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170131/8d7ac570/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list