<font>Mike,<br clear="all"></font>See inline comments.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Hi Brian,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I understand that there is a danger of
overpurchasing (by whomever's definition) that comes from the removal of a needs
test for transfers.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">In most cases we rely on the price of the addresses
to provide some check on this practice, as it would for the overpurchasing of
any other asset a corporation may choose to invest in. </font><font face="Arial">I think we should leave those definition of what an overpurchase
is to the buyers, who will have a range of intended purposes,
projected growth rates, planning horizons and other considerations. At least
with a cap of some sort we limit the overpurchase risk to overall address usage
efficiency.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">A vibrant market is one of the best mechanisms to
prevent what you mention-the problem of addresses sitting idle while real need
exists.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br>At the risk of contradicting myself, I'm not sure a vibrant market is the <i>best </i>answer for the networking community, but I don't disagree that what you propose would invigorate the market. See my comments below about network stability.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">As the price of addresses rise and transactional
roadblocks diminish, idle addresses will come into the market. As the need
rises, the price will rise, driving efficiencies in the utilization of addresses
and wringing the most efficiency through the highest and best use of the
addresses.</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I would agree that as demand rises the prices will increase, but maybe, just maybe most folks will be considering the move to IPv6 where these contentions and price increases will not exist.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial">And as I mentioned, due to the needs test requirement, these
early IPv4 address transactions almost always involve neophyte parties on either
side of the transaction, separated by language, culture, and an ocean. Often
these parties are not familiar with their own RIR policy, much less the policy
of another region. Most of the time the decision to sell or buy addresses has to
overcome corporate inertia and antipathy to new, unusual, and
unlikely-to-be-repeated transactions. This means education about the RIRs and
their position squarely in the middle of the buyer and the seller.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">How likely is this transaction to occur for small
allocations like the /24 needed by Mr. Ryerse of this thread?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I contend that removing the needs requirement will
allow for less uncertainty in what is currently a fraught process for both
buyers and sellers, leading to more transactions, more price stability, and
simpler transactions for all parties, including ARIN, who will avoid the time
and effort of needs testing transfers.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div></div></blockquote><div><br>I appreciate your contention, and it is possible that some of the things you mention may actually pan out, but I do not agree with the "less uncertainty" part of your statement. I would contend removing all needs assessment would create more uncertainty by promoting that anyone can get in the game of brokering IP addresses regardless of their knowledge about networking. Also by increasing the amount of times IP addresses get swapped around the Internet could increase the possibility for networking instability and router misconfiguration issues. <br>
<br>--<br>Brian<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">Mike</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#000000 2px solid;PADDING-LEFT:5px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px" dir="ltr"><div class="im">
<div style="FONT:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial;BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b>
<a title="bjones@vt.edu" href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target="_blank">Brian Jones</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="mike@iptrading.com" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> </div>
</div><div><div class="h5"><div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="arin-ppml@arin.net" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> ; <a title="mike@nationwideinc.com" href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">Mike
Burns</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:28
PM</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition
of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)</div>
<div><br></div>
<p>Hi Mike, </p>
<p>I suppose it is just my old school thinking that you should be at least
"this tall" to ride the ride. Given your explanations below I could relax my
requirements for demonstrating technical support need for transfers. I
actually didn't realize we were only considering transfers and not the
remaining free blocks, so thank you for clarifying that. </p>
<p>It still seems that inefficient use of address space could occur when a
bidder buys much larger blocks than needed due to the lack of any structured
needs requirements. At a minimum a block of addresses could sit idle and
unused while needs exists elsewhere. But really IPv6 should be the best
solution for those needing addresses moving forward any way... :) </p>
<p>Brian <br></p>
<p>On Jun 12, 2013 3:15 PM, "Mike Burns" <<a href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">mike@iptrading.com</a>>
wrote:<br>><br>> Hi Brian,<br>> <br>> Thanks for your
input.<br>> <br>> May I ask why you think there should be a
requirement for demonstration of minimal technical need for transfers, if the
reason is not to prevent hoarding and price manipulation?<br>>
<br>> Remember we are talking only about transfers, and not the
intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 free pool, and that money will be
the determining factor in who receives IPv4 addresses under the current
transfer policy, so long as the needs test is met. That is, we are already at
a point where the highest bidder will get the addresses, irrespective of what
his justified need for the addresses is, just that he has met the RIR need
test.<br>> <br>> I have been operating under the assumption that
the underlying reason for requiring the needs test for transfers which are
already priced is to prevent a buyer without needs from damaging the market
through hoarding or cornering. I understand that many people simply do not
like the idea that address blocks can be bought and sold, and that money has
any influence on who gets addresses, but we are beyond that now.<br>>
<br>> Regards,<br>> Mike<br>> <br>> <br>>
From: Brian Jones<br>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:54 PM<br>> To:
Mike Burns<br>> Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>> Subject: Re:
[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against
2013-4)<br>> <br>><br>> Maybe that was utopian thinking on my
part. It would be nice to disregard what happens with IPv4 space but that
seems to invite some sort of chaos and the last thing needed is more
chaos...<br>><br>> Intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is
important in my opinion.<br>><br>> From Dave Farmer's email
earlier:<br>> "I think the more important issue is an appropriate criteria
on the lower-end and for new enterants, the current slow-start for IPv4 isn't
going to work, post-ARIN free pool. Yes, I know eliminating need
alltogether eliminates that problem, but I'm not sure I can get myself all the
way there. I'd like to see some minimal technical criteria that entitles
someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12 and more than just
that they have the money to do so. Maybe its just as simple as
demonstrating efficient use of at least a /24. If you can't do that then
you can only buy a /24, then you utilize it and you qualify for bigger blocks.
"<br>><br>> Regardless of whether the size blocks discussed is agreeable
or not, I do agree wth the part about the need for "...minimal technical
criteria that entitles someone to be able to buy up to between a /16 and a /12
and more than just that they have the money to do so."<br>><br>> (Of
course I support the idea that we all move to IPv6!) :)<br>><br>>
--<br>> Brian<br>><br>><br>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM,
Mike Burns <<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>>><br>>> Hi Brian, Matthew, and Martin,<br>>>
<br>>> Can I take your plus ones to indicate support of the cap
even in the face of the shell company issue?<br>>> (As well as support
of the idea that we should all move to IPv6.)<br>>> <br>>>
Regards,<br>>> Mike<br>>> <br>>> <br>>>
From: Brian Jones<br>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:03
AM<br>>> To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>>> Subject:
Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out (was:Re:Against
2013-4)<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>>
<br>>> <br>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin
Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com" target="_blank">hannigan@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM,
cb.list6 <<a href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com" target="_blank">cb.list6@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>>>>><br>>>>><br>>>>> On Jun 11,
2013 7:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at" target="_blank">matthew@matthew.at</a>>
wrote:<br>>>>> ><br>>>>> > When will we start
caring about IPv6 and start ignoring IPv4??? Who cares if people set up shells
to acquire v4 space from others? Let 'em, and get v6 deployed
already.<br>>>>> ><br>>>>><br>>>>>
+1<br>>>>><br>>>>>
CB<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>>
+1<br>>>><br>>>> Best,<br>>>><br>>>>
-M<br>>>><br>>>><br>>><br>>><br>>>
+1<br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Brian<br>>><br>>>
<br>>>><br>>>><br>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>>>>
PPML<br>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
to<br>>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>>>>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>>>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>>>>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<br>>><br>>> <br>>>
________________________________<br>>>
_______________________________________________<br>>> PPML<br>>>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>>> the
ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>>>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>>>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<br>><br>> </p></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br>