<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7653.38">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Implementation is at the discretion of the Board and does not take place until they say that the situation warrants it.<BR>
<BR>
Then, it is 3 years. But of course, if an extension were warranted then, the industry could make that decision as they will make this one. It is all about consensus after all.<BR>
<BR>
Not hard to be cynical in this world at this time, but reading the not so fine print actually makes sense.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [<A HREF="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">mailto:tedm@ipinc.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 7:20 PM<BR>
To: Bill Darte; 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses<BR>
<BR>
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as well as "limited time<BR>
offers"<BR>
that were extended.<BR>
<BR>
How many times was the "temporary IPv6 fee deferral" at ARIN extended until<BR>
they<BR>
finally decided to quit pretending it was temporary and normalized fees to<BR>
make<BR>
it one fee for IPv4/IPv6? (effectively making IPv6 free)<BR>
<BR>
The 3 year period is just getting the camels nose under the tent. At the<BR>
end of<BR>
the 3 years the argument will be "nothing really bad happened so why are you<BR>
bitching about extending it" and everyone supporting this will conveniently<BR>
forget<BR>
the promises they implied that they would make sure it dies at the end of 3<BR>
years, and push to extend it for another 3 years. Then 6 years from now the<BR>
argument will be that we extended it for 3 years and no problems, and the<BR>
push<BR>
will be to extend it again. Eventually the argument will be, we have been<BR>
doing it<BR>
for so long, let's make it permanent.<BR>
<BR>
If it's not good enough to be permanent, it's not good enough to even try<BR>
for 3 years.<BR>
<BR>
I didn't say there would never be value in these kinds of efforts. I said<BR>
that there<BR>
is no value NOW. I would prefer we wait until value is apparent THEN talk<BR>
about<BR>
implementing something like this.<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Bill Darte [<A HREF="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu">mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu</A>]<BR>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:57 PM<BR>
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; David Williamson; Kevin Kargel<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4<BR>
Addresses<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"for a period of 3 years" is also found at that URL....<BR>
<BR>
It seeks to serve notice (once again) that these would be extraordinary<BR>
times...as determined by the BoT...and that such transfers will cease to be<BR>
'legitimate' thereafter. Hopefully this signals folks and motivates them<BR>
toward v6. But who knows?<BR>
<BR>
2008-6 provides those who think something is necessary in transition a<BR>
mechanism to move in that direction. It does announce its motivation and<BR>
what and its consistency with past tradition....helping others to swallow a<BR>
bitter pill perhaps.<BR>
<BR>
To those like yourself who think there is no value in these efforts, it<BR>
affords nothing.<BR>
<BR>
Trying to convince 'me' doesn't afford much either, because the proposal is<BR>
not 'my' proposal, but one for the industry to consider.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
ARIN AC<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Ted Mittelstaedt [<A HREF="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">mailto:tedm@ipinc.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 6:41 PM<BR>
To: Bill Darte; 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4<BR>
Addresses<BR>
<BR>
Bill,<BR>
<BR>
The URL would be helpful:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html">http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_6.html</A><BR>
<BR>
The problem is the line: "transfer of ARIN IPv4 addresses between two<BR>
entities in the ARIN region, without the active involvement of ARIN as an<BR>
intermediary, will be considered legitimate"<BR>
<BR>
Have you ever stood in line for movie tickets? I'm sure you have.<BR>
<BR>
When your standing there and there's 50 people in front of you, and<BR>
someone walks up and wants<BR>
to "take cuts" in front of the 3rd guy in line, the 3rd guy in line is not<BR>
going to let him unless he<BR>
gets paid.<BR>
<BR>
And everyone else waiting in line behind the 3rd guy ISN'T going to be<BR>
paid by the guy<BR>
taking "cuts" in front of the 3rd guy. Naturally they are going to be a<BR>
little hot under the<BR>
collar.<BR>
<BR>
This is a market. You can play all the semantic games you want in the<BR>
policy proposal,<BR>
it's still a market.<BR>
<BR>
After the very last IPV4 block is assigned from ARIN, the next day there may<BR>
be someone who<BR>
stops paying their bill, and their block goes back to ARIN. ARIN will then<BR>
reassign it to the next<BR>
person who had put in a request for IPv4 numbers.<BR>
<BR>
IPv4 runout is more correctly defined as the day that the demand for IPv4<BR>
exceeds the supply.<BR>
But there will still be IPv4 handed out after that day.<BR>
<BR>
This transfer proposal allows deep pockets to "cut" in front of that line,<BR>
post-runout. Is that<BR>
fair to everyone else who is trying to wait patiently in line for numbering?<BR>
<BR>
Imagine that movie ticket line if everyone was paying everyone else for a<BR>
chance to be the 3rd<BR>
guy in line.<BR>
<BR>
It would resemble your typical line for something in Italy since the<BR>
Italians have no concept of<BR>
a queue, any time that tickets or anything restricted goes on sale there,<BR>
there's a mad rush<BR>
and everyone piles on, shoving to get to the front.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Bill Darte [<A HREF="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu">mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu</A>]<BR>
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:59 PM<BR>
To: Ted Mittelstaedt; David Williamson; Kevin Kargel<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4<BR>
Addresses<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I would like to remind everyone that 2008-6 has as rationale....<BR>
Rationale:<BR>
<BR>
In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing<BR>
supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN<BR>
resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of<BR>
documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be<BR>
implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of<BR>
need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources<BR>
during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is not<BR>
intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not introduce or<BR>
condone the monetization of address resources or a view of addresses as<BR>
property. It does recognize that organizations making available unused or no<BR>
longer needed address resources may incur certain costs that might be<BR>
compensated by those acquiring the resources. This policy is intended to be<BR>
transient and light-weight and does not encourage a sustained or continuing<BR>
role for IPv4, but rather helps to mitigate a transitional crisis that may<BR>
emerge while the industry adopts IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation<BR>
of ARIN's Board of Trustees.<BR>
<BR>
.....Creating a liberalized transfer policy is not the same as encouraging<BR>
the buying and selling of IP address resources.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
Sent: Mon 9/29/2008 4:54 PM<BR>
To: 'David Williamson'; 'Kevin Kargel'<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4<BR>
Addresses<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
David and Bill Darte,<BR>
<BR>
I agree with Kevin and Michael, I am against paying for numbering<BR>
transfers.<BR>
However I will make the observation that I think David is correct that this<BR>
will<BR>
happen even if we don't want it to, and it will be black market. HOWEVER<BR>
the point that seems to be missed is that if it does go black market, that<BR>
it WON'T HAPPEN until IPv4 runout actually occurs.<BR>
<BR>
Now is not the time to implement legalized transfers based on money<BR>
because if we do allow them or put language into the NPRM at this time<BR>
to permit them in the future, we are instantly creating business<BR>
justification<BR>
for investment in holding companies that do nothing other than lie, cheat<BR>
and<BR>
steal as much IPv4 as they can get BEFORE runout. Meaning you will see a<BR>
flood<BR>
of ficticious requests for IPv4 numbering go into the RIR's pre-runout,<BR>
causing<BR>
runout to happen that much faster.<BR>
<BR>
I would prefer to wait until AFTER IPv4 runout, when there is actual<BR>
evidence<BR>
of black-market IPv4 transfers, THEN implement legalization. Discuss it all<BR>
you want, but DON'T IMPLEMENT ANYTHING OF THE SORT AT THIS TIME.<BR>
<BR>
This policy is basically ASSUMING that unauthorized transfers are going to<BR>
happen and we need to regulate them now. While we can suspect that they<BR>
will happen, and have a very STRONG guess that they will happen, suspicions<BR>
and strong guesses are NOT GROUNDS for policy. With the upcoming POC<BR>
cleanup<BR>
proposals, we have PROOF that we have stale data in there due to the<BR>
number of Bitnet mail addresses discovered, thus policy is called for. What<BR>
PROOF is there that money for IPv4 transfers at this time will help<BR>
anything?<BR>
<BR>
Has anyone ever bothered SURVEYING the existing<BR>
IPv4 holders to find out what percentage would even CONSIDER renumbering<BR>
should an IPv4 market appear? And at what price point?<BR>
<BR>
The ONLY USE that liberalized transfer RIGHT NOW are for people who<BR>
are PLANNING on hoarding and going into business as IPv4 brokers. They<BR>
are of no use to anyone else when ARIN still has IPv4 to hand out.<BR>
<BR>
We have enough work with making policy for things that we KNOW ARE<BR>
HAPPENING<BR>
RIGHT NOW. For example, in the past some have asserted in this forum that<BR>
some of Dean Anderson's IP addresses are hijacked. Has anything<BR>
been done to even investigate this? And if it was investigated and<BR>
discovered<BR>
to be true, what mechanism exists to get them back? Nothing! THERE is<BR>
where<BR>
the policy blanks are that need filling in.<BR>
<BR>
We also have assertions that a number of IPv4 legacy blocks are<BR>
abandonded. And<BR>
we have 2 proposals (mine one) that are tentative steps to discovering which<BR>
one of those blocks ARE abandonded. We will need more policy and more<BR>
discussion<BR>
to work out a mechanism for ARIN to define abandonded legacy blocks and take<BR>
them<BR>
back. Yet ANOTHER policy blank.<BR>
<BR>
I think it would be more fruitful to worry about making policy for<BR>
something<BR>
that is a problem right now, than for a problem we think we might possibly<BR>
have<BR>
a few years down the road. It might be that in the process of cleaning up<BR>
messes like abandonded IPv4 that we will find that we have a lot more IPv4<BR>
than<BR>
anyone thought.<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>