<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:18 AM, George Herbert <<a href="mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com">george.herbert@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><div class="im"><div>On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com" target="_blank">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br><blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-style:normal;display:inline;font-family:Calibri;font-size:small;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt">
<div>Hi Jason,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which
provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities seeking to
purchase addresses at a much higher relative price.<span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor has anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div style="">There are any number of anecdotal examples of people complaining loudly they could not get space, and are not being allowed to simply buy free-market space they could theoretically pay for. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>That's not the same problem we are discussing. Frankly, I'm not certain that is a problem at all. If they do not have a justified need for the addresses according to the policies set by the community, one could argue that their inability to get addresses is not a problem, but the desired outcome. If the community agrees that their inability to get addresses is, in fact a problem, then we should, perhaps, look into ways to adjust the needs basis in policy so that they do qualify.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>It is not clear if this is the extent of the cases of problem, or just the tip of the iceberg.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Indeed, it's not even clear whether or not this is a problem. Certainly, if it is a problem, it can be solved through mechanisms other than removing the needs basis requirements from policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> What bothers me about your argument and the ARIN default position is that it is not helping resolve the question of what extent the problem is widespread vs anecdotal.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If you have a proposal for how to quantify the problem (either of the two problems we are discussing now), I am open to it.</div><div><br></div><div>To be clear, the two problems are:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>To what extent are off-books transfers occurring?</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>To what extent are there organizations which the community feels should qualify for address space</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>that cannot qualify under current policy?</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div><div class="gmail_extra">In the times leading up to End Times (v4 edition), default position was reasonable. In End Times (v4 edition) I think we owe the community a deeper investigation.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Personally, I think we owe the community a definitive statement that the situation with IPv4 is bad and will only get worse. That IPv6 is the way forward and continuing to spend resources trying to keep IPv4 on life support is a bit of a money pit.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">I for one find ARIN-evading dark transfers and the like - which I am anecdotally aware of, and many others are reporting similarly - a sign that there's something seriously wrong.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Everyone seems to be anecdotally aware of these transfers, yet nobody can prove that they have happened. They are the boogeyman of IPv4 policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">I can't prove that.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm willing to accept, to some extent, that where there's smoke, there's fire. However, in this case, we don't even have smoke. We just have second or third-hand rumors that someone claims that something is smoking somewhere.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">What can we do to adequately investigate, and answer the question for everyone's satisfaction?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm open to suggestions. However, I'm unwilling to void what has been very useful policy and reasonable safeguards based on an unsubstantiated rumor.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>