[Top-posting because the specifics don't matter]
Deck chairs. Titanic. If y'all would go deploy the worldwide native IPv6
Internet, none of what happens to IPv4 - including it all being bought
up by "evil speculators" - matters one bit. The amount of time spent
discussing IPv4 policy in the past few months, never mind the amount of
hand-wringing about possible outcomes if the policy is "exploited" by
someone is probably sufficient to have just built the replacement that
I'm told doesn't suffer from any of these issues. Among other things,
the "little guys" that needs assessment is supposedly protecting
(despite ample evidence that /8s are getting locked up outside of policy
by large organizations with perceived need) can go get all the IPv6
space they need, right now, without any trouble.
Is there a way to submit a proposal to the policy development process
itself to block any and all future policy changes that impact IPv4 so we
can just vote on that and then stop this nonsense?
Matthew Kaufman
------ Original Message ------
From: "John Curran" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Peddemors" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: 6/24/2016 3:58:03 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
On Jun 23, 2016, at 7:58 PM, Michael Peddemors <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 16-06-22 06:47 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
The point of 8.5.2 is to clarify that the community believes that
IPv4
addresses are to be used on operational networks, not as resources
to be
held for some other purpose (e.g. financial speculation). We ask
that
an officer of the organization to attest to ensure that the
organization
understands the nature of the transaction and doesn't commit its $
in
support of other goals. I believe having it in section 8 helps
organizations clearly understand the requirements for transfer.
(e.g.
They don't have to hunt around in other sections for other
requirements.) I, personally, believe that the base requirement for
any
transfer is that the organization intend to use it on an operational
network.
Only concern I have, is that it has no real teeth.. You can always
'make' it operational, we have seen recent allotments simply rented
out to spammers who want virgin IP space.. boom.. now it is
used/operational
Michael -
That particular case wouldn’t qualify, as they would have to detail
their usage of
the IP address space on their own operational networks (if there is
a different
intent of the policy, the language should be changed to make that
quite clear.)
I do believe such a provision would have significant teeth with
respect to inhibiting
IP address blocks as a viable large scale investment opportunity.
While those
of questionable repute may want work around such provisions, it
would be rather
difficult to establish a formal vehicle (i.e. fund) for investment
in IP resource blocks
based on a requirement for the necessary representations and the
associated risk
of loss of the entire investment in cases of fraud. Other than
that circumstance,
I agree that it would be fairly straightforward for most operating
companies to make
reasonable representations based on anticipated needs without
significant concern.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
