Hi Rudi! Thanks for the reply!
The reason I like /16 is because the only segment of ARIN customers who has it harder than the small guys are the medium-sized guys. The math on 80% utilization becomes extremely difficult to achieve when you’re bigger than some but smaller than others. 15 years of doing this taught me that there’s a dangerous spot between /20 and /16 where efficiency is really super hard. So I think the /16 makes life easier for the folks who are a bit bigger than small, but not nearly large enough to overcome the situation with money. I hope that clarifies my post David David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14 Re: David's >>>2014-14 would work nicely. -get a "free" 8.3 transfer up to a /16 -anything more requires strict needs basis <mechanism TBD> -throw in a clause that ARIN has the right to refuse if it believes the free transfer is not being made in good faith because of speculation and multiple >>>OrgIDs..end quote. +1 on the above ..from data offerings and knowledge gleamed so far. But a free /16...as opposed to a smaller one..?? RD skype: rudidaniel On Sep 24, 2014 9:49 AM, <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification (Matthew Kaufman) 2. Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification) (John Curran) 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification (Mike Burns) 4. Re: ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs assessment (Martin Hannigan) 5. Re: Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification) (David Huberman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:50:53 -0700 From: Matthew Kaufman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: David Huberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> List \([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>\)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification Message-ID: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Speculators and hoarders could already be locking up space via contracts that aren't even transfers (yet)... And yet I haven't seen much of that going on either. In fact, offers to buy or lease (or any other contract regarding) space are coming in less often than a year ago, if anything. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Sep 23, 2014, at 7:45 PM, David Huberman > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > John wrote: > >> A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on >> current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan >> for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit. > > What is the virtue of a limit? > > It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always > happen outside the view of ARIN policy. Speculators and hoarders will > buy blocks on the open market and simply not engage ARIN because > there's no reason to. Contract law makes it trivial to ignore ARIN. > > It's not conservation - there is no such thing as conservation in IPv4. > 85% of the address space ARIN issued over the last 10 years went > to less than 20 companies. (At a significant penalty, I might add, to > the little guys and especially new entrants, who got screwed in ARIN > policy for 17 years.) > > Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about > the IPv4 market today. I am. I characterize it as VERY robust. Tons of > supply, with new suppliers showing up every month. Outside of China, > prices are low; it's a buyer's market. There's no speculation that I can > find, short of a one-off speculator who is a well-known fraudster. There > is certainly hoarding by the larger companies, but ARIN policy today > isn't stopping that, and no policy passed here can stop that. Think about > that last sentence carefully. ARIN policy is powerless to stop hoarding. > > So how do we write policy that helps the non-big guys? By removing > artificial policy barriers that require lots of paperwork with ARIN beyond > simply, "I bought this /20 from this company, please update Whois". > > ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant, > and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an > RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the > transaction processing. > > Let's simplify ARIN processes, make ARIN policy fit the REALITY of > network operations in a post-exhaustion world, and move on with > talking about RPKI, DNSSEC, IPv6 and other actually important things > that will shape our future. > > David > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:54:38 +0000 From: John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: David Huberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> List \([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>\)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification) Message-ID: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:45 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > What is the virtue of a limit? > > It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always > happen outside the view of ARIN policy. > ... > Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about > the IPv4 market today. I am. > ... > There's no speculation that I can find, short of a one-off speculator > who is a well-known fraudster. > ... > ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant, > and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an > RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the > transaction processing. David - You describe an interesting "present state", and presuming it is well-informed, it is probably extracting and making explicit some points in your worldview before continuing the discussion. You indicate - 1) Hoarding and speculation can happen outside of ARIN's view This is almost certainly the case, as parties always free to contract for future behavior, including a party ceding its ability to transfer address rights to any other party. 2) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter hoarding, due to point #1 above. 3) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter speculation, due to point #1 above. 4) Hoarding does occur, but there is no meaningful speculation that you can find. By "hoarding", I believe that you mean parties obtaining right to number resources in anticipation of future need to make use of them, as opposed to "speculation" whereby one obtains rights in anticipation of financial gain. If you are correct above, it does raise the question of "why isn't there abundant & apparent speculation going on today?" It can't be for lack of interest; investment firms will speculate on nearly anything that has good potential to beat the market. I've had investment firms ask about the 'rules and regulations' that apply to transfers of IP address rights for this very reason. The various policy merits of allowing hoarding or speculation are not mine to argue; that is for the community to ponder through the policy development process. However, you propose that we simplify ARIN processes and make ARIN policy fit reality; effectively that ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant and that parties agree to the transfer. If community does as you suggest, both hoarding and speculation become readily available, and this represents a significant change from the present state as described by your worldview. A change which simply formalized the present state that you describe would not enable speculation, since you do not view that as abundant in the present system. The difference between the two outcomes comes down to whether or not the buyer is obtaining the resources in anticipation of future need or simply financial gain, i.e. is the buyer of the rights to the addresses a bona fide network operator. I'll assert that the present system is actually rather unfavorable to speculation; parties that seek to obtain the rights to address blocks without the real potential for future use are run a very risk of ending up in violation of policy and with impaired investments as a result. More specifically, your postulate [#3] above to the effect that a limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter speculation is likely not valid - the limit does indeed deter speculation today, as having to qualify eventually against needs- based limit requires the party to actually operate a network (or risk total loss of the investment, likely beyond the risk profile of the vast majority of potential investors.) Unless you are advocating for a policy shift to enable speculation, simplification of ARIN policy towards your "present reality" needs to be more than simply verifying that the seller is the bona fide registrant and that parties agree to the transfer; in particular, verification that the recipient is a bona fide network operator would also be required. That is an aspect presently implied in the needs-based limit on the size of an address rights transfer, but that element could be made explicit and retained, if limit itself is otherwise undesirable in your view. Interesting discussion - Thank you! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 07:52:52 -0400 From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "David Huberman" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "John Curran" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification Message-ID: <D94590F128074A84AB76B5BDC495C573@ncsscfoipoxes4> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi list, +1 to what David wrote. I would say it is a buyer's market, there are more sellers than buyers. Also demand for transfer IPv4 is not as high as demand for free pool IPv4 in the previous years. I believe this is due to companies being a litle more efficient internally. And there have been some fairly large CGN deployments as well. I see no evidence of speculation in transfers, even in RIPE after they effectively dropped needs tests for transfers. That last sentence should provide relief for those who have expressed this fear and expectation. I wouldn't call it robust yet, as there are still too few buyers. I agree that ARIN should become a lightweight registry service for IPv4, concentrating on our primary stewardship goal of registration and avoiding policy which works against accurate registration in the name of conservation which is already provided by the natural forces of a market. This will be cheaper for ARIN, easier for everyone to understand, consonant with property law, result in faster transfers, a more accurate registry, less verbose NRPM, reduce corruption potential, and free us for policy development in other areas. Regards, Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Huberman" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: "John Curran" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification > John wrote: > >> A transfer policy mechanism which allows receipt up to a limit based on >> current holdings provides far more certainty for those who wish to plan >> for the future, as they can go to market knowing precisely that limit. > > What is the virtue of a limit? > > It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always > happen outside the view of ARIN policy. Speculators and hoarders will > buy blocks on the open market and simply not engage ARIN because > there's no reason to. Contract law makes it trivial to ignore ARIN. > > It's not conservation - there is no such thing as conservation in IPv4. > 85% of the address space ARIN issued over the last 10 years went > to less than 20 companies. (At a significant penalty, I might add, to > the little guys and especially new entrants, who got screwed in ARIN > policy for 17 years.) > > Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about > the IPv4 market today. I am. I characterize it as VERY robust. Tons of > supply, with new suppliers showing up every month. Outside of China, > prices are low; it's a buyer's market. There's no speculation that I can > find, short of a one-off speculator who is a well-known fraudster. There > is certainly hoarding by the larger companies, but ARIN policy today > isn't stopping that, and no policy passed here can stop that. Think about > that last sentence carefully. ARIN policy is powerless to stop hoarding. > > So how do we write policy that helps the non-big guys? By removing > artificial policy barriers that require lots of paperwork with ARIN beyond > simply, "I bought this /20 from this company, please update Whois". > > ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide > registrant, > and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an > RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the > transaction processing. > > Let's simplify ARIN processes, make ARIN policy fit the REALITY of > network operations in a post-exhaustion world, and move on with > talking about RPKI, DNSSEC, IPv6 and other actually important things > that will shape our future. > > David > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List > ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:27:44 +0200 From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2014-20 and current future looking needs assessment Message-ID: <CAMDXq5P_ySx9aC5Kkfyq93ry3MfGr1dnNUA5DgO7Rg4gmF=y...@mail.gmail.com<mailto:[email protected]>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > You have always been able to get space from ARIN based on forward-looking > business cases, but it has been limited. > > This applies to both free pool and transfers equally, though free pool being > limited to a 3-month window now for ISPs makes "forward" a little less > useful. Business plan is a useless term in this context. My earlier point which may not have been clear was that ARIN is not qualified to evaluate a business plan let alone compare my business plan to a competitors and make judgements as to what my (or their) need is. If they did do such a thing, it would be problematic. The three month window is a market limit not so much of a business limit unless ARIN unevenly applies the policies (which in my own view, they do). So with that said, yes, I agree, it applies to both free pool and transfer requests. > > I would venture that most end-user initial allocations are based on at least > somewhat forward-looking projections. All submissions regardless of who submits them follow this theme. You tell ARIN what you want. They guess if its credible or not, then assign what you need or figure out what policy to use to avoid fulfilling the request. Best, -M< ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:48:40 +0000 From: David Huberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification) Message-ID: <dd33d38ad67b4bcea4ac0ecba4fbd...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com<mailto:dd33d38ad67b4bcea4ac0ecba4fbd...@dm2pr03mb398.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I think John's message, with its new info that speculators call him regularly to learn the rules, leads to a fairly straightforward conclusion: 2014-14 would work nicely. -get a "free" 8.3 transfer up to a /16 -anything more requires strict needs basis <mechanism TBD> -throw in a clause that ARIN has the right to refuse if it believes the free transfer is not being made in good faith because of speculation and multiple OrgIDs This makes life easy for non-big guys. It deters speculation. It keeps needs basis for those with all the money. What's the counter argument against 2014-14? David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing ________________________________________ From: John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 4:54:38 AM To: David Huberman Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> List ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>) Subject: Hoarding and speculation (was: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification) On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:45 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > What is the virtue of a limit? > > It's not the prevention of speculation and hoarding. Those will always > happen outside the view of ARIN policy. > ... > Before anyone answers this, please ensure you're knowledgeable about > the IPv4 market today. I am. > ... > There's no speculation that I can find, short of a one-off speculator > who is a well-known fraudster. > ... > ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant, > and that the seller agrees to the transfer, and that the buyer signs an > RSA and pays whatever fees are necessary to cover the costs of the > transaction processing. David - You describe an interesting "present state", and presuming it is well-informed, it is probably extracting and making explicit some points in your worldview before continuing the discussion. You indicate - 1) Hoarding and speculation can happen outside of ARIN's view This is almost certainly the case, as parties always free to contract for future behavior, including a party ceding its ability to transfer address rights to any other party. 2) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter hoarding, due to point #1 above. 3) A limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter speculation, due to point #1 above. 4) Hoarding does occur, but there is no meaningful speculation that you can find. By "hoarding", I believe that you mean parties obtaining right to number resources in anticipation of future need to make use of them, as opposed to "speculation" whereby one obtains rights in anticipation of financial gain. If you are correct above, it does raise the question of "why isn't there abundant & apparent speculation going on today?" It can't be for lack of interest; investment firms will speculate on nearly anything that has good potential to beat the market. I've had investment firms ask about the 'rules and regulations' that apply to transfers of IP address rights for this very reason. The various policy merits of allowing hoarding or speculation are not mine to argue; that is for the community to ponder through the policy development process. However, you propose that we simplify ARIN processes and make ARIN policy fit reality; effectively that ARIN's job should simply be to verify the seller is the bona fide registrant and that parties agree to the transfer. If community does as you suggest, both hoarding and speculation become readily available, and this represents a significant change from the present state as described by your worldview. A change which simply formalized the present state that you describe would not enable speculation, since you do not view that as abundant in the present system. The difference between the two outcomes comes down to whether or not the buyer is obtaining the resources in anticipation of future need or simply financial gain, i.e. is the buyer of the rights to the addresses a bona fide network operator. I'll assert that the present system is actually rather unfavorable to speculation; parties that seek to obtain the rights to address blocks without the real potential for future use are run a very risk of ending up in violation of policy and with impaired investments as a result. More specifically, your postulate [#3] above to the effect that a limit on the size of transfers cannot meaningfully deter speculation is likely not valid - the limit does indeed deter speculation today, as having to qualify eventually against needs- based limit requires the party to actually operate a network (or risk total loss of the investment, likely beyond the risk profile of the vast majority of potential investors.) Unless you are advocating for a policy shift to enable speculation, simplification of ARIN policy towards your "present reality" needs to be more than simply verifying that the seller is the bona fide registrant and that parties agree to the transfer; in particular, verification that the recipient is a bona fide network operator would also be required. That is an aspect presently implied in the needs-based limit on the size of an address rights transfer, but that element could be made explicit and retained, if limit itself is otherwise undesirable in your view. Interesting discussion - Thank you! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 111, Issue 60 ******************************************
_______________________________________________ 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.
