See inline comments. -- Brian
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for your thoughts. > No doubt a more vigorous transfer market will lead to more router > misconfigurations. > 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. > Hopefully that would be the case but no guarantees if there are no requirements other than dollars. > > 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. > I agree that there needs to be an easier way to make reasonable transfers of addresses. > > Your point about moving to IPv6 is important, because that move is the > 800lb gorilla in the room. > 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. > Who would speculate under these conditions? > What if we limited his total purchases to a /12, or his aggregate holdings > to a /12, otherwise he would be needs-tested? > A /12 is a lot of address space, but it seems to be a reasonable break point for a lot of the responders on this list. My hope is that ardent networkers will push toward IPv6 instead of clinging to legacy addressing. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > *From:* Brian Jones <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM > *To:* Mike Burns <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Mike Burns <[email protected]> ; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post > ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4) > > Mike, > See inline comments. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> Hi Brian, >> >> I understand that there is a danger of overpurchasing (by whomever's >> definition) that comes from the removal of a needs test for transfers. >> 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. 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. >> >> A vibrant market is one of the best mechanisms to prevent what you >> mention-the problem of addresses sitting idle while real need exists. >> > > > At the risk of contradicting myself, I'm not sure a vibrant market is the > *best *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. > > > >> 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. >> > > 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. > > >> >> 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. >> >> How likely is this transaction to occur for small allocations like the >> /24 needed by Mr. Ryerse of this thread? >> >> 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. >> >> > > 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. > > -- > Brian > > > >> Regards, >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Brian Jones <[email protected]> >> *To:* Mike Burns <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] ; Mike Burns <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:28 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post >> ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4) >> >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> 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. >> >> 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... :) >> >> Brian >> >> On Jun 12, 2013 3:15 PM, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Brian, >> > >> > Thanks for your input. >> > >> > 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? >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > From: Brian Jones >> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:54 PM >> > To: Mike Burns >> > Cc: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN >> run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4) >> > >> > >> > 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... >> > >> > Intelligent allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is important in my >> opinion. >> > >> > From Dave Farmer's email earlier: >> > "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. " >> > >> > 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." >> > >> > (Of course I support the idea that we all move to IPv6!) :) >> > >> > -- >> > Brian >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Brian, Matthew, and Martin, >> >> >> >> Can I take your plus ones to indicate support of the cap even in the >> face of the shell company issue? >> >> (As well as support of the idea that we should all move to IPv6.) >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Brian Jones >> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:03 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out >> (was:Re:Against 2013-4) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM, cb.list6 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 11, 2013 7:15 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > 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. >> >>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 >> >>>> >> >>>> CB >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> -M >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PPML >> >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> >>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PPML >> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > >> > >> >> >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
