On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:18 AM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jason, >> >> 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. > > Yes, it has been argued. It hasn't necessarily been substantiated, nor has > anyone raising said argument provided any real evidence to support it. > > > 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. 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. > It is not clear if this is the extent of the cases of problem, or just the > tip of the iceberg. 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. > 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. 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. To be clear, the two problems are: 1. To what extent are off-books transfers occurring? 2. To what extent are there organizations which the community feels should qualify for address space that cannot qualify under current policy? > 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. 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. > 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. Everyone seems to be anecdotally aware of these transfers, yet nobody can prove that they have happened. They are the boogeyman of IPv4 policy. > I can't prove that. 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. > What can we do to adequately investigate, and answer the question for > everyone's satisfaction? 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. Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
