If ARIN does not have the resources to allocate because of runout, how pray
tell can an ARIN policy be used to corner the market? You can’t get blood out
of a turnip. There is nothing to stop someone from buying a Legacy block
completely outside of ARIN now if they choose to do that. We know that current
ARIN policies are not stopping brokers from doing this - as there is a brisk
business of blocks being traded in one way or another. You are just
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic which has already sunk and is already at
the bottom of the sea. I wonder if the fish down there really care where those
chairs are arranged?
The common sense thing to do would be to modify ARINs policies to encourage all
transactions to go thru ARIN which would lead to more supply for everyone.
This would be in line with ARIN’s mission to further the Internet.
Unfortunately common sense rarely prevails in this community.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
[Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks,
Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2 and 8.3 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
Removing barriers would allow companies with enough money to out right buy more
than a two year supply of IPv4 addresses if they believed their likelihood of
needing a longer time horizon justifies the cost. They could complete the
transaction, transfer the address space in whole, and use as they desired over
whatever time horizon they saw fit.
This is different to a buying a future where money is paid to hold IPv4
addresses, and make them available for sipping from in two year (or less) sized
increments under the ARIN transfer policy. This requires demonstrating
efficient utilization of currently held resources, and then only permits a
maximum transfer of two year supply, after which a new demonstration of
efficient utilization of currently held resources, and a new two year window
can be established.
This second approach has much risk associated. Risk of the transfer source
going bankrupt, risk of the transfer source breaching the contract, risk of the
transfer source finding more favorable terms and transferring the remaining
future to another party, risk of the transfer recipient having underutilization
and have an inability to get additional resources, risk of transferring the
resources to the wrong OrgID (realizing a new use case under one OrgID
evaporates, and a different new use case appears under a different OrgID).
As such, the inherent risk of a future will likely limit the spend.
Reducing or eliminating this risk will encourage the behavior.
This is different than just paying money to get unlimited use of IPv4 resources
outside of ARIN policy, with no transfer, and only a letter of authority to
route the space, a re-allocate or re-assignment SWIP, or a public comment
indicating who has the right of use.
This third approach has the risk of the source going bankrupt and the risk that
the source could easily revoke the LOA, SWIP or public comment, and ask
providers to not route the IP space. It has the added reputation risk that the
recipient of the IP space is acting below board.
As such risk is even greater than the previous case and will likewise have a
greater limitation on the spend.
The final case is renting of IPv4 space. This differs from the previous case
in that the spend is ongoing (e.g. monthly or yearly).
The risk is similar to the previous case except if the IPv4 addresses are
revoked payment is stopped. While the recipient has not lost their future
spend, they also may find themselves suddenly out of IPv4 space. With the
difficulty of renumbering, they may find they are forced to pay predatory
pricing from some period of time, and double rent new IP space while they
number out of the old (excessively high cost) IPv4 space. Furthermore, if IPv4
space is not available for rent at a reasonable price, they will be locked in
to paying an unreasonable price.
Due to the uncertainty and possibility of lock in and predatory pricing I would
argue this arrangement is even more risky than the previous arrangement if long
term (think more than 2 years) use of IPv4 is desired.
___Jason
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Randy Carpenter
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Are you arguing that by removing the barriers that it would make it more
difficult for Google to get more addresses? If not, then the point is moot.
thanks,
-Randy
----- On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:47 PM, Mueller, Milton L
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> Really. Am I going to have to be the first to point out the irony of Google
> employees complaining that companies with "deep pockets" and "the most
> profitable services" will dominate the address market if we make minor
> relaxations of need assessments?
>
>
>
>
> What's wrong with this picture? Think, folks.
>
>
>
>
> Isn't it obvious that companies like Google are in a very good position to get
> the addresses they want - via less than transparent market mechanisms such as
> options contracts and acquisitions? And isn't it possible that they might be
> trying to prevent smaller companies from participating in the market by
> throwing up artificial barriers?
>
>
>
>
> All this talk of "fairness" overlooks the fact that it's more fair to have
> simple, transparent bidding and less bureaucracy. Smaller bidders can easily
> afford smaller chunks of numbers, and they benefit from the reduced
> administrative burden and delays associated with pointless and restrictive
> needs assessments. When I hear smaller ISPs who need addresses making Jason's
> arguments, I might take them seriously. Until then, no.
>
>
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
>
> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
> Jason
> Schiller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 3:11 PM
> To: Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
> evaluation for Section 8.2 and 8.3 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
> +1 to what MCTim, Owen, and Vaughn said.
>
> In general I oppose transfers with no need.
>
> If there are "networks in need of additional IPv4 addresses", surely they
> should
> be able to show this, in accord with long standing practice.
>
> I'd rather us not move to a situation which enables/encourages speculation and
> profit taking (or rent-seeking if you will) in re: IP resource distribution.
>
> I'd also rather not encourage one competitor in a business segment to be able
> to
> better stockpile addresses and for that to become a competitive advantage
> against other providers in the space. Additionally if this is done in a wide
> enough scale it can sufficiently lengthen wide spread IPv6 adoption.
>
> This policy would also allow for companies with the deepest pockets and the
> most
> profitable services to concentrate IPv4 space. I'm not sure that is more
> "fair"
> than the pre-existing framework for "fair".
>
> __Jason
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>
>
>
> +1
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive brevity and typos.
>
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 2:16 PM, Owen DeLong <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> +1 — McTim said it very well.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 18, 2016, at 10:34 , McTim <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>
> I am opposed.
>
> If there are " networks in need of additional IPv4 addresses", surely they
> should be able to show this, in accord with long standing practice.
>
> I'd rather us not move to a situation which enables/encourages speculation and
> profit taking (or rent-seeking if you will) in re: IP resource distribution.
>
> Regards,
>
> McTim
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Leif Sawyer <
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
>
>
> Good afternoon -
>
> Based on feedback from Montreal as well as internal discussions, I've reworked
> this policy.
> AC members and ARIN staff are looking for additional feedback, as well as your
> position in terms
> of supporting or opposing this draft policy.
>
> We'll be discussing this policy, as well as any feedback provided on this
> week's
> AC teleconference,
> so I'm very appreciative of your input.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Leif Sawyer
> Shepherd - ARIN-2015-9
>
> NRPM section 8: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eight
>
> Most current draft policy text follows:
> --
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9
> Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2 and 8.3 transfers of IPv4
> netblocks
> Original Date: 23 September 2015
> Updated: 16 February, 2016
>
> Problem statement:
> The current needs-based evaluation language in NRPM sections 8.2 and 8.3,
> regarding transfer of IPv4
> netblocks from one organization to another, may cause a recipient organization
> to bypass the ARIN
> registry entirely in order to secure the needed IPv4 netblocks in a more
> timely
> fashion directly from the
> current holder. The result is that the data visible in ARIN registry may
> become
> more inaccurate over
> time.
>
> Policy statement:
> This proposal eliminates all needs-based evaluation language for sections 8.2
> and 8.3, allowing
> transfers to be reflected in the database as they occur following an agreement
> of transfer from the
> resource provider to the recipient.
>
> Section 8.1 Principles:
> - Strike the fragment from the 3rd paragraph which reads
> ", based on justified need, "
> so the resulting text reads
> "Number resources are issued to organizations, not to individuals representing
> those organizations."
> Section 8.2 Mergers and Acquisitions:
> - Change the 4th bullet from:
> "The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies."
> to:
> "The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies, excluding
> any
> policies related to needs-based justification."
>
> - Strike the final paragraph which begins "In the event that number resources
> of
> the combined organizations are no longer justified under ARIN policy ..."
>
> Section 8.3 Transfers between Specified Recipients within the ARIN Region:
> - Change the first bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer"
> from:
> "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP
> address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
> to:
> "The recipient must sign an RSA."
>
> - Change the 2nd bullet under "Conditions on recipient of the transfer" from:
> "The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies."
> to:
> "The resources to be transferred will be subject to ARIN policies, excluding
> any
> policies related to needs-based justification."
>
> Comments:
> a. Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> b. Anything else
> As the "free pool" for 4 of the 5 world's RIR's (APNIC, RIPE, LACNIC, and
> ARIN)
> have now been
> exhausted, networks in need of additional IPv4 addresses have shifted away
> from
> the practice of
> receiving them from the RIR's resource pool. Instead, networks in need are
> seeking out current holders
> of IPv4 resources who are willing to transfer them in order to fulfill that
> need. Accordingly, the RIR's
> primary responsibility vis-à-vis IPv4 netblock governance has shifted from
> "allocation" to ensuring an
> accurate registry database.
>
> The RIPE registry can be used as a reference of one which has evolved over the
> past couple years to
> shift their focus away from conservation/allocation and towards database
> accuracy. IPv4 netblock
> transfers within that RIR consist merely of validating authenticity of the
> parties requesting a transfer.
> Provided the organizations meet the basic requirement of RIR membership, and
> that the transferring
> organization has the valid authority to request the transfer, the transaction
> completes without any
> "needs-based" review.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________
> Jason Schiller|NetOps| [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> |571-266-0006<tel:571-266-0006>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason
Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________
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.
