<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra">Comments in line.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<div> </div>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="mike@iptrading.com" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:04 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="jschiller@google.com" href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">Jason Schiller</a> </div><div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><div>
<div>Hi Jason,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you really think that small ISPs seeking to fund 40 years of IPv4
address needs pose a problem that is greater than the problems posed by
retaining the needs test for all transfers? Remember we are talking in the
context of a /12 annual cap or a /12 aggregate cap on needs free transfers. I
fail to see the threat posed by Mom and Pop ISPs with $10 million on hand to
ensure they will have IPv4 addresses in 40 years. I doubt you could identify a
single likely candidate for this group.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The problem here is not the the hoarding that results in removal of addresses from the </div>
<div>market <span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-family:Calibri;font-size:15.555556297302246px">leading to market manipulation</span> but rather the arbitrary and anti-competitive </div><div>policy that would qualify smaller organizations (if they can afford it) to buy enough </div>
<div>addresses to satisfy their need for many many years (more than the likely transition time </div><div>to wide spread IPv6 adoption), while large organizations (ones that expect more than a </div><div>growth of a /12 over the time to wide spread ipv6 adoption) can only secure two years.</div>
<div><br></div><div>One could imagine a medium sized residential ISP that adds 65,000 customers a year, </div><div>with an install base of about 1,000,000. At a /16 per year, a /12 represents 16 years of </div><div>growth.</div>
<div>
<br></div><div>Now imagine they are competing in the same footprint as a large residential ISP that adds </div><div>about 1,000,000 customers a year. That ISP can only make long term plans, and a business </div><div>plan based on the current price for IPs for the next two years.</div>
<div><br></div><div style>The large residential ISP is at a competitive disadvantage, as they cannot depend on IP </div><div style>addresses being available in two years time, or at a price that is sustainable in the current or </div>
<div style>proposed business model. If in two years time the price of IPs climes, then the large </div><div style>residential ISP is at a disadvantage.</div><div style><br></div><div style>___Jason</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri">
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are real, extant problems associated with retaining the needs test
for transfers, chief among them driving transactions off the books to the
detriment of the one principle everybody has agreed on- the principle of
registration. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>This is off list, so I can tell you that I am aware of many such
transactions, where the use of IP address blocks change hands but where Whois
does not record that fact.</div>
<div>Generally all that is required is for the buyer to wave a Letter of Agency
at their upstream and begin advertising the block.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, I have seen Geoff Huston’s slide show on multiple occasions. Were you
aware that he is a proponent of needs-free transfers and the concentration of
the RIRs on their primary role of Registration?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have my own opinions on CGN as a result of deploying it as a provider and
purchasing it as a user. </div>
<div>I have written and compiled some information at these URLs.</div>
<div><a href="http://www.iptrading.com/blog-1/" target="_blank"><font face="Times New Roman">http://www.iptrading.com/blog-1/</font></a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.iptrading.com/news/" target="_blank"><font face="Times New Roman">http://www.iptrading.com/news/</font></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have read Draft-Donley and find it ludicrous. Maybe 2% of the users would
even notice the move to CGN. Allowing that small slice to opt-out of CGN
provides the carrier with protection against complaints of degraded service as
well as at least a 10:1 reuse of addresses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I do not fully understand the equivalence you make between the needs-test
horizon (currently 24 months) and the cap on needs-free transfers for buyers who
either purchase less than a /12 per year or control less than a /12 in
aggregate. The goal is to reduce the paralyzing friction presented by the
requirement for even tiny transactions to pass through the approval of a third
party whose workings are mysterious to most buyer and sellers, in my experience.
It is the cost of this uncertainty which causes sellers to eschew the slicing of
their blocks into small sizes and engaging in multiple serial transactions with
buyers. Likewise the costs of creating, vetting, and approving a contract are
too great to induce sellers with small blocks to enter the market. My idea of
allowing some transfers to happen without the uncertainty of the needs test will
allow for more small transactions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And of course would provide a disincentive for those who buy and sell
address blocks without Whois updates.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And for a North American buyer of a /22 to consider opening a foreign
office and receiving the addresses from RIPE or APNIC, then using them in North
America?</div>
<div>Well, a /22 costs around $10K. I doubt that companies with needs that small
would consider that option for one second. Heck the RIPE fees would eat that up
in just a couple of years, not including the costs of a foreign office and the
likelihood that receiving those address from RIPE or APNIC may include some
attestation that they will actually be used in those geographical regions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You keep talking about concentrating IP addresses in a few hands and the
fairness of that. Remember that this situation is the status quo, and the few
hands that hold the largest blocks are large companies. And remember that RIRs
do not distinguish between high profit and low profit when determining need. The
idea of a cap is that nobody can acquire enough space to manipulate the market,
so talking about increasing concentration is not relevant. The whole point is
that a cap precludes that concentration. The maximum any one entity can control
or purchase per year is just .0002 of total space. That is not a recipe for
establishing market control.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So I think your contention is that removing a needs test will lead to
problems with hoarding and market manipulation. My answer is that limiting
needs-free transfers will mitigate or ameliorate these problems.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Mike</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
</div><div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div> </div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="jschiller@google.com" href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">Jason Schiller</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:23 PM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mike@nationwideinc.com" href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="bjones@vt.edu" href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target="_blank">bjones@vt.edu</a> ; <a title="mike@iptrading.com" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> </div><div><div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</div></div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></div><div><div>
<div style="font-size:small;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Calibri;display:inline;font-weight:normal">
<div dir="ltr">Off thread, trying hard not to dominate the conversation.<br><br>
<div>Mike, </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think any organization really only needs enough addresses to continue
</div>
<div>doing IPv4 business as usual until most of the important parts of the
Internet</div>
<div>have adopted IPv6. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>(Insert appropriate values for important and most).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I expect that in some far off time, just about everything, or at least
nearly all</div>
<div>of the things my customers want to talk to is IPv6 enabled. At this
point transit</div>
<div>providers can safely turn up IPv6-only customers, and content providers can
</div>
<div>start freezing their growth of IPv4 based content, growing that same
content </div>
<div>in only IPv6.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The only people penalized at this point will be those who choose to
have</div>
<div>legacy equipment in their own end-user networks. I think that is a
</div>
<div>reasonable price for people to pay for refusing to move off of windows 95
</div>
<div>or replace their DVD player. (The ball is in your court
customer.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If that far off time is 20 years, and an organization can buy 40 years
worth of </div>
<div>address space, that is more than they will ever need, which is why I called
it</div>
<div>"virtually unlimited". But fair point.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't mind large organization needing to do extra work to justify their
need,</div>
<div>even when small ones don't.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I mind a small organization being able to secure 40 years of addressing, at
</div>
<div>a locked in price and predictable business model, and large organizations
</div>
<div>only able to secure two years worth, not being able to make a long term
</div>
<div>plans to compete with smaller organizations. And the large
organizations</div>
<div>being forced to pay the (unpredictable) market rate every two years.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"This business plan makes sense as long at the price of an IPv4 address
doesn't</div>
<div>go above $16.52 in the next 30 years, and it doesn't goes above $12.20 in
the next 5 </div>
<div>years while we depreciate our investment. "</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If we are comfortable letting organizations buy up to a cap, then that cap
has to be </div>
<div>proportional, and represent the same amount of time. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Right now the cap is two years, and I believe the community has
acknowledged we </div>
<div>have a problem with slow start. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am concerned that a larger cap will lead to slowing the IPv6
deployment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think two years is a reasonable amount of time a large organization would
need </div>
<div>to deploy IPv6 if they haven't started already and are serious.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Making the cap large enough for most organizations to get more than they
need </div>
<div>to get them trough the IPv6 transition time, but limiting the largest
organizations</div>
<div>seems unworkable to me.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having no cap, allows the IPs to move freely to those that are willing to
put up the</div>
<div>most money. Concentrating IPs in either rich companies, or companies
that have </div>
<div>high value services with the greatest return on the IP address doesn't seem
fair. </div>
<div>While I don't support this (as I believe there is already too much
inequity) I support</div>
<div>a large (non-proportional) cap even less.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Imagine a policy of only providers of quadruple play can transfer IP
addresses...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or the two largest national incumbents in wireless, business wireline,
broadband, </div>
<div>TV, and VoIP business sectors can transfer in up to two years of address
space, </div>
<div>everyone else can buy as much as the can afford.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>WRT forcing into CGN I wonder if you heard Geoff Huston's key note a few
</div>
<div>NANOG meetings back:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=1853" target="_blank">http://www.nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=1853</a><br></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I wasn't suggesting that a /22 market cap would preclude a soft landing
policy.</div>
<div>I was suggesting there is a /22 soft landing policy in RIPE and APNIC. That
maybe a</div>
<div>transfer cap of /22 isn't needed as most folks who would excursive that
could</div>
<div>just as easily go to RIPE or APNIC for their space. It is not such a
burdon to have a </div>
<div>European or Asian office to get space. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If it is, we could do a similar soft landing proposal here.. or dove tail a
soft landing</div>
<div>proposal like that into transfer and slow start...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>__Jason</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<div>Hi Jason and thanks for your interesting reply.</div>
<div>As you know, my original proposal was not based on a cap that is based on
the size of the entity, but instead on the number of addresses allowed to be
transferred without a needs test per annum.There was a suggestion that this
cap instead be placed on the aggregate number of addresses held by an
organization.</div>
<div>The reason given was that these organizations would likely have more
experience with justifications, and that the needs test would be less of a
burden for them.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree that this aggregate cap does burden the larger organizations, but
consider that these larger organizations by definition have fed at the trough
of the free pool extensively compared to their less endowed competitors. One
could argue that they are reaping the advantage of being there early and thus
should shoulder the burden of needs testing additional transfers that late
entrants who have to pay for their addresses should be exempted from. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for me, I think either version of the cap will serve to prevent
hoarding and market cornering, but will reply inline to some of your other
comments:</div>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline;font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div></div>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline;font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none"> </div></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>>Consider a small rural residential ISP, with a /22.</div>
<div>>- This ISP is using a single /24 for loopback, point-to-point, </div>
<div>management network, and corporate network.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>- This IPS has 615 customers each with a single IPv4 address.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>- This ISP has seen fairly linear growth of 600 customers every two
years.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>In 6 months they will exhaust their currently held space.</div>
<div>>They already qualify for another /22.</div>
<div>>Once they get this additional /22 that gives them addresses to cover
4 years.</div>
<div>>(/22 is about 3.4 years of customer + 6 months current
available)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>A /12 represents 6,990 years worth of address space</div>
<div>>A /16 represents 218 years of address space</div>
<div>>A /20 represents 13.5 years of address space</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>Should small organizations be able to by a virtually unlimited amount
of </div>
<div>address if they can afford it?</div>
<div> </div></div>
<div>First of all, it would be an odd rural residential ISP who could fork
over $10 million for a /12.</div>
<div>And a /12 is not the same as “virtually unlimited”, surely you know that.
The limit is just .0002 of available IPv4 space.</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>>Should a large organization (who can demonstrate need) only be
permitted</div>
<div>to buy two years worth of address space?</div>
<div> </div></div>
<div>As I said, I am agnostic about whether the cap is on aggregate holdings
or annual transfers. But I would point out that it is the large companies who
pose the greatest risk of hoarding addresses, simply because they usually have
the required funds to risk in this endeavor. </div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>>Organizations have also realized they only have to do native IPv4 for
shortly longer </div>
<div>than their competitors then they can force all new customers into some
sort of </div>
<div>provider based large scale NAT (CGN 444 + IPv6 / GCN 644).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>So now people are bracing for a slow and painful transition to
IPv6.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>Never mind anti-competitive behavior of cornoring the market on IPv4
addresses,</div>
<div>think about reasonable players the feel the need to stockpile enough
addresses</div>
<div>to continue doing native IPv4 longer than their competition in order to
not loose </div>
<div>their customer base to competitors who can offer a better native IPv4
product when</div>
<div>you can't.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>>Which means getting years worth of IPv4 space...</div>
<div>>Which means we are not going to run out...</div>
<div>>Which means we can continue to save by deferring the cost</div>
<div>of deploying IPv6...</div>
<div>>Which menas buying more space...</div>
<div>>(if we are not ready to deploy IPv6 buy two more years
worth)</div>
<div>>(or if the industry hasn't embraced IPv6 in a real way buy enough to
last until it has)</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div>
<div>I agree with what you are saying, although “forcing” customers into CGN
is not something I am aware of, rather this is being provided as an option to
users, with the ability to opt out, at least with the British deployments and
Verizon residential DSL. My Sprint 4G has been using CGN on squat space
for years without my ability to opt out, though. But if you take this view,
that an IPv4 market will provide a disincentive toward IPv6 deployment, maybe
what you should be after is policy designed to make the market less viable,
less vibrant, through increasingly onerous restrictions on transfers and
allocations. Also, if ISPs can realize a 10:1 or even 100:1 address savings
ratio through the use of CGN, wouldn’t they be more likely simply to introduce
CGN and then hoard the addresses they have saved, rather than go to the
transfer market to buy more? Note that this is only an option for those who
already have large holdings of IPv4 space.</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>>If you are looking to make needs justification easier then maybe
something like:</div>
<div>>- any org can transfer a single /22 no need required</div>
<div>>- any org can transfer up to four times the amount of address rounded
to </div>
<div>nearest CIDR utilized in the last year</div>
<div>> * (jan 1, had 14 M addresses in use, dec 31 had
17M) 3M = /20 qualify for /18</div>
<div>>- any org who transfered a /22 can get an additional /22 when the
current one is 80% </div>
<div>utilized even if they have utilized less than a 513 addresses in the last
year</div>
<div>> *( jan 1 had 711 addresses, dec 31 had 820) 109 = /25 </div>
<div> </div>
<div>>But agin the community will have to accept a four year window, which
will likely do </div>
<div>bad things to IPv6 deployment. If you made the threshold a /23,
then you could keep </div>
<div>the two year window... but they why not just go to RIPE or APNIC and get
a /22 from</div>
<div>the soft landing policy?</div>
<div> </div></div>
<div>I am heartened that you would even consider a /22 cap for needs free
transfers. </div>
<div>But I don’t think that this conversation should in any way preclude
consideration of some kind of soft-landing policy for free pool
addresses.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Mike</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or we could let the businesses themselves decide how much they want to
spend to insure themselves against a potential long-term future for IPv4. Some
conservative entities may choose to buy “up to the cap” in this situation,
others who think IPv6 is close, or a new transition technology is in the
offing, might seek to sell addresses while they have value. It is in the
interplay of those transactions that a price will be derived, representing the
opinions of all transactors. </div>
<div>I think that what you are arguing is that a large number of buyers will
have the money and inclination to buy “up to the cap”, resulting in more
overall hoarding than if we maintained the needs test for all transfers.
I think this would require a kind of conspiracy or at least groupthink which I
do not perceive among buyers and sellers in the market.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mike Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<div>Hi Brian,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your thoughts. </div>
<div>No doubt a more vigorous transfer market will lead to more router
misconfigurations.</div>
<div>I think a knowledgeable middle-man could help mitigate that, and would
take business from the guy getting into the game without networking
knowledge you mention below.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is real uncertainty when dealing with the registries. A recent
transaction took nearly a month to complete, most of which was spent in the
back and forth of a justification. It’s always a fingers-crossed situation
for buyer and seller. One broker told me she does the “happy dance” every
time a deal makes it through justification.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Your point about moving to IPv6 is important, because that move is the
800lb gorilla in the room.</div>
<div>Nobody knows when the move will happen or how long it will take,
but when it happens it is bound to affect IPv4 prices negatively.</div>
<div>Who would speculate under these conditions? </div>
<div>What if we limited his total purchases to a /12, or his aggregate
holdings to a /12, otherwise he would be needs-tested?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div>Mike</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline;font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:tahoma">
<div><font size="3" face="Calibri"></font> </div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(245,245,245)">
<div><b>From:</b> <a title="bjones@vt.edu" href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target="_blank">Brian Jones</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="mike@nationwideinc.com" href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> </div>
<div><b>Cc:</b> <a title="mike@iptrading.com" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a> ; <a title="arin-ppml@arin.net" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a> </div>
<div>
<div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)</div></div></div></div></div>
<div> </div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline;font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">Mike,<br clear="all">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 style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><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 style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<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 style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<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 style="border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<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-color:rgb(0,0,0);border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px" dir="ltr">
<div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial;background-color:rgb(228,228,228)"><b>From:</b> <a title="bjones@vt.edu" href="mailto:bjones@vt.edu" target="_blank">Brian
Jones</a> </div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="mike@iptrading.com" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank">Mike Burns</a>
</div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family: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-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:28
PM</div>
<div style="font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;font-size:10pt;line-height:normal;font-family:arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] A
Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)</div>
<div> </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>
<div> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div> </div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">
<div><span style="font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">
<div> </div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">
<div><span style="font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div>
<span style="font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div>
<div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font>
</div></div>