I find Bill's proposal an interesting middle ground approach. I do not believe completely eliminating needs-based justification for addresses is the correct thing to do.
-- Brian On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bill Buhler <[email protected]> wrote: > Having watched this for the last couple of years let me make a couple of > observations / one proposal: > > > > There seems to be a lot of fear on both sides of this debate, on the needs > test side there seems to be a complete fear of monopolization of the IP > address space by those with deep pockets. > > > > On the other side there seem to be a couple of thoughts: > > > > 1. It’s a market, markets work best when freed from constraints > that increase the complexity of non-harmful transactions, and that allowing > companies to more freely exchange IP resources is not harmful. > > 2. Not liking to justify future and current operations to a third > party / fear of rejection by this process. > > > > I may not have encapsulated both arguments well, and these have been > hashed over again and again for the last few years. So what is different > today? ARIN has allocated every last resource from the free pool, and has a > long waiting list. > > > > So what if we strike a compromise? What if some restrictions were put on > allocation size and frequency without a needs test and left only the truly > large or frequent transactions to do it. Something like this: > > > > Every legal entity can obtain up to a /22 from the transfer market every > year, in up to two transactions. They may not transfer these resources out > of their network within twelve months. Each legal entity has to occupy a > unique address (suite level) from any other entity in the ARIN database. > > > > All transfers larger than a /22 need to have needs based justification > done based on the current model. > > > > > > If you wanted to speculate, you would need to spin-up dozens of entities > all with unique mailstops, and you would have to camp on the addresses for > a year. Meanwhile the small end users and ISPs could obtain up to a /22 of > a resource that with a lot of careful use of NAT would support a fairly > large public network. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Bill Buhler > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM > *To:* Owen DeLong > > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating > needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 > netblocks > > > > Owens comment from below: > > “2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them.” > > > > Owen’s comment is absolutely false!!!!! It allows large organizing who > request resources to get what they need or something smaller. It allows > medium size organizations who request resources to get what they need or > something smaller. It allows small organizations who request resources to > get what they need or nothing, and there is no other source to get > resources if ARIN rejects a request, but the open market which Owen and > others seem to wish did not exist! > > > > It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be a big > help to small organizations who really need resources! > > > > *Steven Ryerse* > > *President* > > *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* > > *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell* > > *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office* > > > > [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse > Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks℠ > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Owen DeLong > *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating > needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 > netblocks > > > > > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:42 , Elvis Daniel Velea <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Richard, > > On 25/09/15 06:46, Richard J. Letts wrote: > > b) > There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel > that it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at > best. > > the outcome is that everyone that will need IP addresses will be able to > get them. Isn't that quite definitive and clear? > > > > Sure, except it isn’t actually an outcome of the proposal on many levels: > > > > 1. The proposal does nothing to guarantee a supply of addresses or even > increase the supply. > > 2. To the extent that there is supply, anyone who needs addresses can get > them already. Needs-based evaluation does not prevent those with need from > getting addresses… It prevents those without need from getting them. > > 3. The definitive outcome from the policy change, if there is such, is > that those without need will now be more easily able to acquire addresses, > potentially preventing those with need from acquiring them. > > > > > It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain > more resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and educational > organizations who might not be able to raise cash for additional IPv4 space > [or equipment to support a transition to IPv6]. > > So, you think that in today's market the non-profit/educational > organizations will have the chance at getting some of the IP space from the > market? And if the needs-based barrier is removed, they will no longer have > that chance? > Everyone knows that the IP address is now an asset and is worth a buck. > Who do you think will say: I'll give it for free to this educational > organization (because they have proven the need to ARIN) instead of giving > it for money to this commercial entity (that may or may not have a > demonstrated need need for it). > > > > Contrary to your statement, there have been addresses returned to ARIN and > there have been organizations who chose to transfer addresses to those they > found worthy rather than maximize the monetization of those addresses. > > > > OTOH, having a policy like this in place certainly makes it easier to > manipulate the market to maximize the price. > > > > I think we need to wake up. Keeping needs-based criteria in the policy > will only cause SOME transfers to be driven underground and block some > others. > > > > I think claiming that those of us who believe needs-based criteria is > still useful are asleep is unwarranted. > > > > Changing policy just to (potentially) improve the accuracy of a database > seems not worth the (potential) risk. > > The change of the accuracy of the registry is already proven in the RIPE > region. I would say it's not just potential, it is real and visible. > > > > Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was > RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what extent > was it improved as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was used > to determine that the measured increase in accuracy was the result of the > particular policy abandoning needs-based evaluation? > > > > Owen > > > > > Richard > > regards, > Elvis > > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf > of Dani Roisman <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 6:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks > > | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400 > | From: ARIN <[email protected]> > | To: [email protected] > | Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based > | evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 > netblocks > | Message-ID: <[email protected]> > | Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 > | Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 > | transfers of IPv4 netblocks > | > | On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted > | "ARIN-prop-223 Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, > | and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks" as a Draft Policy. > | > | Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9 is below and can be found at: > | https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html > > Greetings, > > There has been some stimulating dialog about the merits of 2015-9. I'd > like to ask that in addition to any overall support or lack thereof, you > also review the policy language and comment specifically on the changes > proposed: > a) For those of you generally in support of this effort, are there any > refinements to the changes made which you think will improve this should > these policy changes be implemented? > b) For those of you generally opposed to this effort, are there any > adjustments to the policy changes which, if implemented, would gain your > support? > > -- > Dani Roisman > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
