<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>>> Can you provide us with a comparable
measure of the number of old address holders who have not responded to
opportunity afforded by the 8.2 change?<BR>> <BR>> No.<BR>>
<BR>>> If possible, please break down the number into two groups -- those
who are on the fence and holding out fin hopes of additional blandishments and
concessions, and those whose philosophical or >commercial priorities preclude
registration regardless of the side payments.<BR>> <BR>> I have never met
anybody whose philosophical or commercial priorites preclude registration. I
imagine that many of those who have not done the 8.2 transfer have failed to see
any utility in doing so.<BR>> Besides, the ARIN language never required it,
it only says "ARIN will consider requests for transfers." And since the
addresses continued to be routed without notifying ARIN of the mergers and
acquisitions, many failed to apply. Also, for legacy holders, an 8.2 transfer
meant having to sign an RSA, I think, which was a disincentive.<BR><BR>If you
are uncomfortable with the second half of of the question, then a simple
accounting of all of the old address holders who have not responded yet will
suffice.<BR><BR>To quote what you deleted, for the sake of clarity:<BR><BR>"I
have argued that the uptick in 8.2 transfer requests is in response to natural
market forces at work. Prices go up and owners of address block control take
steps to ensure accurate registration."<BR><BR>Without some means of (at
minimum) benchmarking the relative size of (or anything else about) that "slight
uptick," your interpretation of its causes and relevance are completely
subjective.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>Tom, how could I have any of the
information you are soliciting? I merely held that I think the uptick in
processing of 8.2 transfers for historical mergers and acquisitions that John
Curran mentioned is evidence of the increasing desire to have addresses properly
registered as the value of those assets increases and replacement addresses are
no longer available from the free pool. And that was in response to your
assertion that it is the needs requirement which increases Whois accuracy. My
point was, and is, that there is a logical reason for address holders to
desire registration, and that they would naturally do so if not impeded by the
necessity of passing ARIN's needs analysis. Yes, I never held that this
interpretation was more than my subjective opinion backed up by an understanding
that registration is the clearest means of establishing ownnership rights to
control of these assets, and as those rights become increasingly valuable,
owners will seek accurate registration</STRONG>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><FONT size=2 face=Arial>>> Having enjoyed the extremely lopsided
privilege of discussing broadly related matters with Geoff semi-regularly
between the years 2000~2009, I wholeheartedly agree that he is one of the
world's >foremost experts on BGP. However, with all due respect to the man,
Geoff's views about the relative merits of market-based vs. RIR-style
need/capability-based number resource allocation were formed >*before* BGP
was widely deployed [1]. To my knowledge, the first concrete expression of those
views took place in mid-1994, as documented for example in the recently
published 20-year >retrospective on AARNET and the early days of the Internet
in Australia [2]. The second concrete expression of those views AFAIK is RFC
1744 (December 1994), which I (completely subjectively) >interpret as a
somewhat bitter personal reflection on the results of the first experience
[3].<BR>> <BR>>> Regardless of whether or not that interpretation is
valid, contemporaneous Australian press accounts indicate that AARNet's
acquisition by Telstra was announced on January 7 1997 and implemented on
>July 1, and that Geoff had assumed the title of Telstra Internet's Technical
Manager on or around the same time. After that he continued to advocate the same
position, e.g., in the context of the IETF >"Pricing for Internet Addresses
and Routing Advertisements" (piara) BoF.<BR>> <BR>>> So while Geoff's
world-class expertise in BGP is unquestionable, his seemingly consistent
preference for market-based vs. need/capability-based resource management must
be based on something else.<BR>> <BR>> I never claimed that Geoff Huston,
whom I have never met, did not have a preference for market-based solutions,
only that he did not view the danger of disaggregation as a reason to have needs
requirements for transfers.<BR><BR>Why are you attempting to change the subject
to disaggregation? I thought your proposal was based on claims about the best
way to maintain whois accuracy?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><STRONG>I'm not changing the subject to
disaggregation, in fact I mentioned that this was one of the points noted in
opposition, please reread the entire thread from this morning. </STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>> Unless you are implying that his preference for market-based
solutions has somehow overridden his BGP expertise, my point stands.<BR><BR>I
decline to speculate about Geoff's innermost thoughts on this matter. Geoff has
a vast reserve of hard experience dealing with market mechanisms in the BGP
world, but even he hasn't advocated pure free-market routing at all places and
times. But then my experience discussing matters like these with people all over
the world for the last decade or so has left the impression that world-class
expertise in BGP is perfectly compatible with radically opposing, mutually
incompatible views -- not only concerning the best way to maintain a protocol
number resource registry, but even about the proper way to manage global
interdomain routing. Opinions on the two subjects seem to be quite independent
and unrelated, at least in most people. <BR><BR>Of course there is undeniably a
subset of people (in fact, one that's is quite well represented in this
industry) who believe that unrestricted market mechanisms represent the ideal
solution for every problem at all times and places. I find it a lot easier to
assume that you fall within that group -- esp. since you have more-or-less
self-identified yourself as a member. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>I do support voluntary markets as optimal mechanisms for resource
allocation. But Geoff was brought into this only to demonstrate that somebody
with more BGP expertise than me thought that the threat of disaggregation was
not greater than the threat to Whois represented by needs requirements for
transfers.<BR><BR></STRONG>>> Besides, wasn't it you who just recently
rejected (my) suggestion that observations based on the historical experience(s)
of other registries could provide insight on the merits of your
proposal?<BR>> <BR>> You suggested that the historical experience of the
DNS registry was applicable, but I still have not seen an apples-to-apples
comparison worthy of providing insights. For the DNS registry to inform us, we
would have to compare an experience of for-pay DNS registries *with a
needs test* to for-pay DNS registries *without a needs test*.<BR><BR>Okay, I
concede your point.<BR><BR>And based on the same logic, I suggest that this
proposal should be abandoned on the grounds that no one can claim to have any
relevant "apples-to-apples" experience, or to have have any defensible
"apples-to-apples" basis for assuming that this proposal has any chance of
making it easier to maintain whois accuracy going forward.<BR></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>My logic says that analogies have to be apt to be informative. Your
logic says that nothing new can be proposed.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>And I point again to the unusual aspects of the MS/Nortel deal as
evidence that had the needs requirement not very fortunately aligned with the
prior facts of the sale, the transaction would likely have occurred and led to
Whois inaccuracy. Care to address the fact that of the universe of publicly
accessible data on transfers, 100% of the deals required fortuitous needs
findings in order to maintain Whois accuracy? And also please consider
whether you think it legal for a legacy holder to transfer addresses without
being subject to ARIN's needs requirements, and by transfer I mean pay money for
and then route, NOT having ARIN update Whois. My reading of the bankruptcy
docs showed the judge viewed Nortel as having the exclusive right to transfer
the addresses.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Per this article, it's not only Mike Burns who feels that all ARIN
can do with these transactions is withhold Whois updates.</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/051111-nortel-ipv4-sale.html">http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/051111-nortel-ipv4-sale.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>TV<BR><BR>>> Or did you really mean that historical observations
that seem to flatter your argument are relevant, but observations that raise
doubts are not?<BR>> <BR>> No.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>>
Mike<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> TV<BR>> <BR>>
[1] The gradual diffusion of BGP during this period is recorded in some detail
in the IETF's old "Internet Monthly Report" series (1991-1998): </FONT><A
href="ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/museum/imr/"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/museum/imr/</FONT></A><FONT size=2
face=Arial>.<BR>> Additional good sources on both the state of EGP/BGP(x)
deployment and concurrent thoughts about addressing management include the IETF
meeting minutes for the area.operations, area.routing, bgpdepl, tacit, ale,
cidrd, idr, and piara BoFs/working groups.<BR>> <BR>> [2] Described here:
</FONT><A
href="http://www.aarnet.edu.au/News/2009/11/26/AARNet-salutes-20th-anniversary-of-the-Internet-in-Australia.aspx"><FONT
size=2
face=Arial>http://www.aarnet.edu.au/News/2009/11/26/AARNet-salutes-20th-anniversary-of-the-Internet-in-Australia.aspx</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=2 face=Arial>> The episode in question is detailed in Chapter 4, p. 48
-- which is available online at<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.aarnet.edu.au/library/AARNet_20YearBook_Chapter4"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>http://www.aarnet.edu.au/library/AARNet_20YearBook_Chapter4</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=2 face=Arial>> <BR>> [3] </FONT><A
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1744"><FONT size=2
face=Arial>http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1744</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=2
face=Arial>> <BR>> <BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>