>>The large multinational actor has the option of buying space in the ARIN market and moving it ARIN->>APNIC->CNNIC.
>>The small operator in China has trouble competing with the large multinational actor because the small actor has no such option for >>obtaining IPv4 addresses.<< If the above is s fair example of current situation, it seems unfair or did advantageous to a smaller operator. So would a set of anti flip words with an allocation size operator work? Or would there be fear of broadening the flip market ? Or I can ask, at what size of allocation does antiflip rules begin to be necessary? RD On May 27, 2015 8:17 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > [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] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [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-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (Seth Mattinen) > 2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (Adam Thompson) > 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (John Curran) > 4. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong) > 5. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong) > 6. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers > to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:23:16 -0700 > From: Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 5/26/15 16:14, David Huberman wrote: > > Bill, > > > > I don't understand your position. > > > > There's no free pool. All space comes from the market. > > > > A small actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > > A large actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > > > > How does the large actor moving space they hold from ARIN to CNNIC > disadvantage the small actor? > > > > > ARIN still appears to have IPv4 inventory to fulfill requests that I > think of when I think "small actor", like /24's and /23's. The size that > probably can't match what a company like Microsoft can pay for IP space. > What do you consider small? > > ~Seth > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 18:57:53 -0500 > From: Adam Thompson <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Unless I've missed something, the change in question only affects > purchased or transferred blocks, not blocks coming from inventory. > As far as I know, big and small players already pay the same price in the > transfer market. > The existing policies only seem to affect large corporations in the first > place, so don't disadvantage the small org AFAICT. Considering I'm always > complaining about vsmall orgs being ignored, I'd like to see a situation > where this change negatively images them, if I've missed it. > (Apologies for top-posting from mobile..) > -Adam > > On May 26, 2015 6:23:16 PM CDT, Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 5/26/15 16:14, David Huberman wrote: > >> Bill, > >> > >> I don't understand your position. > >> > >> There's no free pool. All space comes from the market. > >> > >> A small actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > >> A large actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > >> > >> How does the large actor moving space they hold from ARIN to CNNIC > >disadvantage the small actor? > >> > > > > > >ARIN still appears to have IPv4 inventory to fulfill requests that I > >think of when I think "small actor", like /24's and /23's. The size > >that > >probably can't match what a company like Microsoft can pay for IP > >space. > >What do you consider small? > > > >~Seth > >_______________________________________________ > >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. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150526/350ba519/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 02:06:57 +0000 > From: John Curran <[email protected]> > To: BIll Herrin <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On May 26, 2015, at 7:11 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... > > If that's what you truly believe and the rest of the RIR leadership > > agrees with your viewpoint, may I respectfully suggest that you > > collectively task the NRO with creating a uniform policy and policy > > process to replace the regional policies and process we have now. > > Some clarity of terms: > > - Global policy ? policy used by the IANA registry operator for > administration > of the IANA Internet number registries > > - Globally-coordinated policy ? policy used by the RIRs for > administration of > their regional registries that has been coordinated among the RIRs to > be > uniform > > - Regional policy ? policy used by the an RIR for administration of the > Internet number registries for that region > > It is the community, not an asserted ?RIR leadership?, that matters when it > comes to policy development, and the community has the tools necessary > to develop globally uniform policies if it chooses to do so. > > > This is one of those things where the middle ground compromise is > > distinctly worse than either pole. Either act regionally with policies > > and address pools for use within the region or act globally with > > policies and address pools for use worldwide. The middle ground lends > > itself only to unfair advantage for multinational operators who can > > shop multiple regions for advantage. > > You have a reasonable argument for why there should be globally-coordinated > policy in this area. If you need any assistance when developing your > proposal, > please reach out to the ARIN Advisory Council for assistance. Ultimately, > it is up > to the globally community whether a globally uniform transfer policy is > desirable. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:03:45 +0200 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I could support a policy that allows you to transfer them to your own > entity out of region for this purpose if there were some language that > prevented subsequent flipping. > > However, the policy as proposed creates too much opportunity for > unintended consequences that the original anti-flip language is intended to > prevent. > > Owen > > > On May 26, 2015, at 10:30 PM, David Huberman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Why is another region's policy problem or restrictions something that > needs > >> fixing through ARIN policy? > > > > Two answers: > > > > Because ARIN-region networks, subject to ARIN's NRPM, need to be able to > move IP addresses out of region where and when they're needed. > > AND > > Because ARIN policy currently prohibits staff from counting > out-of-region use as part of justification for a request. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:09:07 +0200 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: "ARIN PPML \([email protected]\)" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > You are correct, David? We should restore the anti-flip language that > prohibits an organization which received a transfer from subsequently being > a provider for any transfer within 24 months. > > Owen > > > On May 27, 2015, at 12:38 AM, David Huberman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> So basically, you'd like to do an end run around the law in China and > it would > >> be oh so helpful if ARIN would cooperate? > > > > ??? > > > > For clarity: > > > > Statement 1: If you acquire a block on the open market and transfer it > into your ARIN account, NRPM 8.4 locks it into ARIN for 2 years. > > > > Statement 2: If you need to operate in China and get Chinese transit or > peering, Chinese law requires the prefix being announced be registered in > CNNIC. > > > > Statement 1 was intended to prevent flipping/speculating. > > Statement 2 is Chinese internet policy. > > > > A bad actor gets around Statement 1 by transferring the block to a > different OrgID in ARIN via NRPM 8.2. Once that transfer occurs, the block > in the different OrgID is not subject to Statement 1 . Flipping/speculation > can now occur. > > > > A good actor has no choice but to get around Statement 1 by transferring > the block to a different OrgID in ARIN via NRPM 8.2, then doing an > inter-RIR transfer to APNIC (and then to CNNIC). BGP can now occur. > > > > In either case, Statement 1 is no-op. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 14:11:58 +0200 > From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: "ARIN PPML \([email protected]\)" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 > (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients) > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > The large multinational actor has the option of buying space in the ARIN > market and moving it ARIN->APNIC->CNNIC. > > The small operator in China has trouble competing with the large > multinational actor because the small actor has no such option for > obtaining IPv4 addresses. > > (As one example) > > Owen > > > On May 27, 2015, at 1:14 AM, David Huberman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > I don't understand your position. > > > > There's no free pool. All space comes from the market. > > > > A small actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > > A large actor pays money to get her necessary space from the market. > > > > How does the large actor moving space they hold from ARIN to CNNIC > disadvantage the small actor? > > > > David > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Herrin [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:55 PM > >> To: David Huberman > >> Cc: ARIN PPML ([email protected]) > >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR > >> Transfers to Specified Recipients) > >> > >> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:38 PM, David Huberman > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> A good actor has no choice but to get around Statement 1 by > >>> transferring the block to a different OrgID in ARIN via NRPM 8.2, then > >>> doing an inter-RIR transfer to APNIC (and then to CNNIC). BGP can now > >> occur. > >> > >> Hi David, > >> > >> That's a "good" actor? This sort of corrupt behavior that benefits > multi- > >> national organizations at the expense of local operators is why I argued > >> against inter-RIR transfers in the first place. I doubt I'll win this > argument > >> either, but at least someone will have gone on record calling a spade a > spade. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bill Herrin > >> > >> > >> -- > >> William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > Owner, > >> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 119, Issue 12 > ****************************************** >
_______________________________________________ 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.
