<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m =
"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US dir=ltr link=#0563c1 vLink=#954f72>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV>Retaining the needs policy will result in a Whois filled with zombie
corporations, resuscitated from the dead, alive only in the sense of their Whois
listing and (sometimes) up-to-date corporate filing. These zombie
corporations will be owned by companies like David’s, whose business decisions
drive them towards non-policy-compliant address transfers. Whois will not
be updated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kind of like how all the addresses sold by Nortel to Microsoft in 2011 were
registered not to Nortel, but to zombie companies acquired by Nortel along the
way. Had not Microsoft elected to negotiate a secret modified Legacy
Registration Services Agreement with ARIN, and instead simply routed the
addresses, we would still see the zombified Bay Networks in Whois. And when and
if Microsoft sold those addresses to another party, Bay Networks would live
on.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Please note these are entirely legal business transactions, and to add to
the discussion at NANOG today, in my experience I have never had an upstream
fail to route addresses for a customer whose name did not match the Whois
registrant. Sometimes (usually, actually) they will require an LOA. But as long
as the block is not advertised anywhere else, why would any upstream decide to
stick a finger in their customer’s eye by refusing to route them, since the LOA
covers any conceivable legal risk to the upstream.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Large or small companies, I have never seen them refused. What’s more, I
think any upstream that does refuse knows that their competition will not, which
along with customer circuit revenue drives their decision. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,<BR>Mike Burns</DIV>
<DIV>IPTrading.com</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=David.Huberman@microsoft.com
href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com">David Huberman</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:31 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3
transfers</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal>We had a discussion today at NANOG in the ARIN PPC about
needs-basis in 8.3 transfers. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>I’d like to state the following, and then let’s see where the
discussion takes us:<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>My team runs an AS. And yep, we’re a pretty big
company. We rely on IPv4 today for most of our numbering, and will
continue to do so for the next couple of years.[1] In the coming year,
when we can’t get space from ARIN or other RIRs, we have to turn to the market
for our IP address needs. We may choose to buy more than a 2 year
supply, because it may make business sense for us to do so. ARIN
policy, however, only allows us to take the IP addresses we buy and transfer the
portion which represents a 2 year need. The rest will remain in the
name of whoever sold the IP addresses to us. <o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Why is this result good for the operator community?
Wouldn’t it be better if ARIN rules allowed us to transfer into our name all the
IP addresses which we now own?<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>/david<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>[1] We’re working on increasing IPv6 presence in our network
and our products, but large corporations move slowly ;)<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p></o:p> </P></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<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>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<BR>Please
contact info@arin.net if you experience any
issues.</DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>