Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments

[Owen DeLong]

I suspect that is the intent, but as I read the policy, I believe the actual 
effect would be to cause the PAU to be counted as a /56 no matter how small a 
block you stuck your downstreams with.

The current language already makes the PAU the smallest block you issue and 
requires you to justify all space issued to customers in units of that smallest 
size.

The changes to 2.16.1 do seem to create a situation where allocations smaller 
than /56 cannot be counted for utilization at all. It also opens the flood 
gates for assigning multiple PAUs to a site without requiring any justification 
for the multiple PAUs vs. a single one.

As such, I believe the text as written is actually contrary to solving the 
stated problem description is it allows (for example) an ISP to decide that 
their PAU is /56, issue /56s to customers that they want to treat as 
second-class citizens, and issue /48s to their higher paying customers without 
any additional justification for the larger blocks (or even something larger 
than a /48), thus eliminating the incentives codified into the original policy 
that require an ISP to treat all end-sites roughly the same or provide strong 
justification for the allocations and assignments that are larger than the 
smallest ones.

I remain opposed to the policy on that basis. I would not be opposed to a 
policy which met the stated intent of this policy, but as currently written, I 
do not believe this proposal does so.

Owen

> On Sep 25, 2015, at 20:48 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Is this policy codifying that a /56 is the minimum acceptable assignment to 
> an end-user and that if I assign less, I'm not allowed to come back to the 
> IPv6 tough until I've filled up my space with whatever smaller than /56 
> allocations I decide to make? Not saying right or wrong, just seeking 
> clarification. 
> 
> Maybe it's more appropriate under a different group than policy, but I'm new 
> here, so this is the best spot I've seen so far (other than maybe 
> ARIN-2015-1). Anything about X-Small ISPs and initial IPv6 allocations for 
> them in the works? I know of many ISPs (personally, I know of dozens, though 
> I'm sure several hundred of them exist in NA) that are X-small under IPv4 and 
> don't have any IPv6 due to the added expense of moving up to small. yeah, 
> it's not a large sum of money, but with increasing regulatory and network 
> burdens, "bonus" areas like IPv6 are cast aside. Smaller blocks, smaller 
> fees, I dunno, I'll let someone else figure out what's best there. Just 
> trying to find ways of getting the little guys represented and brought into 
> IPv6.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>   
>  
> 
> From: "ARIN" 
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:54:13 PM
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
> 
> On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
> "ARIN-prop-224 Minimum IPv6 Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_10.html
> 
> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
> Policy 2015-10 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
> 
> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
> 
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
> 
> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> 
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> 
> 
> ## * ##
> 
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
> 
> Date: 23 September 2015
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> ISPs may believe that they have an incentive to obtain smaller blocks 
> than they really need, and once they receive their allocation may 
> subsequently issue blocks smaller than their customers may need in the 
> future. This policy seeks to encourage the correct behavior by 
> reiterating the smallest reasonable sub-allocation size and by 
> discounting any space which has been 

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

[Andrew Dul]

On 9/26/2015 12:11 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> Owen,
>
> On 25/09/15 20:24, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> just have a look at the number of transfers pre-2013-03 and the number
> of transfers after the policy proposal was implemented.
>
> Basically, transfers via the RIPE NCC (recorded in the registry) have
> become the standard for everyone in the RIPE region, financial
> artifices have not been used anymore (as far as I know) once the
> need-based barrier has been removed.
>

Just because there are more transfers, one cannot know for sure that the
data is more accurate.  The number of transfers may be increasing for
other reasons.  It is possible that the data is more accurate, but just
saying "see there are more transfers" does not mean the database is more
accurate.

Andrew


___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Owen,

On 25/09/15 20:24, Owen DeLong wrote:
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?


just have a look at the number of transfers pre-2013-03 and the number 
of transfers after the policy proposal was implemented.


Basically, transfers via the RIPE NCC (recorded in the registry) have 
become the standard for everyone in the RIPE region, financial artifices 
have not been used anymore (as far as I know) once the need-based 
barrier has been removed.


cheers,
elvis
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

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

[Brian Jones]

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  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:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM
> *To:* Owen DeLong
>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *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:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
> ] *On Behalf Of *Owen DeLong
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM
> *To:* el...@velea.eu
> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *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  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 

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

[Matthew Petach]

I am OPPOSED to the proposal as written;
I think it's a bridge too far.  I would instead
support a compromise as has been discussed
of a total of one /22 per year per org-ID transferrable
needs-free; I would recommend the hold period
be two years from transfer date (ie, you may not
transfer that block of addresses again for 24
months so long as you remain a solvent
business entity; if you become insolvent,
ARIN can arm wrestle with the court over
control of the number resource).  Any
transfer larger than a /22 would still be
subject to need analysis.

Matt


On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Dani Roisman  wrote:
> | Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:53:59 -0400
> | From: ARIN 
> | To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> | 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: <56031167.1010...@arin.net>
> | 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments

[Brian Jones]

I do not think this policy is unsound or unfair, however I do not believe
it will have the intended effect. Network Operators should have the ability
to subnet their address blocks as they see fit without being penalized when
they come back for more addresses. It seems that as long as the allocated
space has been utilized they should be able to successfully request more.

I agree that a /48 makes reasonable sense as an assignment block size for
end sites. It also makes more sense to limit the number of smaller routed
block sizes to keep Internet routing tables from unreasonable growth.

--
Brian

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 3:37 PM, John Springer 
wrote:

> Hi PPML,
>
> There have been a number of public discussions regarding the ins and outs
> of IPV6 subnet allocation. One such starts here:
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-October/070339.html
>
> My recollection of the outcomes of these discussions is a sort of rough
> consensus that /48 is a good idea and indeed, many of the calculations used
> to evaluate what size of V6 block an org should request, start with that
> assumtion.
>
> ARIN (speaking as myself, not a member of any group and roughly
> paraphrasing someone more authoritative than I) does not dictate what you
> do with addresses after the allocation has been received. In some cases,
> ARIN looks at what you do with addresses when you come back for more and
> might not give them to you depending on what choices you have made.
>
> That is what this Draft Proposal seeks to do.
>
> I think it is clear that we can do that. Should we?
>
> And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is
> technically unsound or unfair and partial?
>
> John Springer
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, ARIN wrote:
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
>> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>>
>> On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> "ARIN-prop-224 Minimum IPv6 Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_10.html
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
>> Policy 2015-10 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>>
>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>>
>>   * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>   * Technically Sound
>>   * Supported by the Community
>>
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
>> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>>
>> Date: 23 September 2015
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> ISPs may believe that they have an incentive to obtain smaller blocks
>> than they really need, and once they receive their allocation may
>> subsequently issue blocks smaller than their customers may need in the
>> future. This policy seeks to encourage the correct behavior by reiterating
>> the smallest reasonable sub-allocation size and by discounting any space
>> which has been subdivided more finely from any future utilization analysis.
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Modify section 2.15 from "When applied to IPv6 policies, the term
>> "provider assignment unit" shall mean the prefix of the smallest block a
>> given ISP assigns to end sites (recommended /48)." to "When applied to IPv6
>> policies, the term "provider assignment unit" shall mean the prefix of the
>> smallest block a given ISP assigns to end sites. A /48 is recommended as
>> this smallest block size. In no case shall a provider assignment unit for
>> the purpose of this policy be smaller than /56."
>>
>> Modify section 2.16.1 from "A provider assignment unit shall be
>> considered fully utilized when it is assigned to an end-site" to "A
>> provider assignment unit shall be considered fully utilized when it is
>> assigned in full (or as part of a larger aggregate) to a single end-site.
>> If a provider assignment unit (which shall be no smaller than /56) is split
>> and assigned to multiple end-sites that entire provider assignment unit
>> shall be considered NOT utilized."
>>
>> Comments:
>> Timetable for implementation: IMMEDIATE
>> ___
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>> ___
> PPML
> You are receiving this 

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

[Adam Thompson]

At this point, I support anything that looks like a compromise so we can get 
*any* change in policy at all... So this looks like a decent compromise to me.  
Yes, it'll have to be revisited in a couple of years' time; yes, the specifics 
probably aren't perfect.  The community can change those.  The policy can even 
be written such that ARIN staff can change them independently (although this 
doesn't seem to be a popular model).
Insisting on perfection is just hamstringing the entire service region... both 
the speculators *and* legitimate users.
-Adam


On September 26, 2015 8:47:46 PM CDT, Brian Jones  wrote:
>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  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:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
>[mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] *On
>> Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM
>> *To:* Owen DeLong
>>
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
>> *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:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
>> ] *On Behalf Of *Owen DeLong
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2015 1:24 PM
>> *To:* el...@velea.eu
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
>> *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

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:23 , Elvis Daniel Velea  wrote:

Hi Owen,

On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote:

It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was.

My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is strongly influenced by 
the potential windfall he stands to reap while not actually providing
any internet services in the process if the policy is changed as he wishes.

Please stop implying what influences my beliefs. I doubt you can read my mind.

I already said it several times that regardless of the outcome, there are 
plenty of organizations that have already received 'pre-approvals' and helping 
at least those will fill up my plate.. What do you mean we do not provide an 
internet service? We offer various services, not just the brokerage part.

As yo pointed out, many folks make a profit on various INETERNET SERVICES. 
Elvis, OTOH is not in the internet services business. He’s strictly
an address broker.

What do you mean by 'not in the internet services business' ? I think you are 
starting to be rude and would like to ask you to back off a bit.
We offer various services to our customers: IP management, LIR management, 
audits, Sponsoring LIR services (RIPE Region), IPv6 migration support, etc…

Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients and other 
organizations?
so you are saying that only companies that move bits between 
customers/other organisations are in the internet service business?


what about the RIRs? or the I* organizations ? I doubt they move bits 
for customers.. are they also excluded from your list or they do offer 
internet services? if the latter, what is then the difference?




Or are you strictly in the address marketing/management business?

 From everything you have said to me, I’ve been led to believe the latter. If 
you actually sell access or transit services, hosting, or anything like that, 
then I stand corrected.
we are discussing a policy change on the ARIN PPML list, not on nanog... 
and I am not even sure why you keep talking about this.. It really does 
not matter what the company I work for does, we are discussing here as 
citizens interested in the policies.



It would be sort of like Realtors arguing against transfer taxes on real 
estate. An argument based solely in greed rather than any actual concern for 
the common good.

Again, you are just guessing why I am commenting on this policy proposal. As an 
ex-RIR employee, I've told you (and others) several times that I still want to 
do the right thing for the community. I have already made several policy 
proposals in the RIPE Region (one recently accepted by the community) and I am 
active in APNIC and now ARIN…

Fair enough, but I’d call it an educated guess based on conversations we’ve had.
I talk here in my name and not in the name of my company. Same as you 
and most of the people on this list.



Owen, last time we discussed you said that you understand the need of brokers 
and while a few years back you did not agree with us existing, now you are no 
longer against... I see personal attacks in the two e-mails you sent and I 
don't understand where these come from.

Not exactly.

I said I understand the needs of brokers, not that I saw a need for brokers. 
Understanding the needs of brokers does not imply a desire to accommodate them.
I did say that I am not opposed to brokers existing and I am not. However, I’m 
not in favor of supporting them to the detriment of the community, either.

In fact, I have worked with brokers to get IP addresses for organizations. I 
see no incompatibility between needs basis and brokers working above board.

Your repeated expressions of willingness to conduct transfers outside the 
system if you can’t do whatever you want within the system are where I take 
exception. These have been your own words even in this very thread.
I did not say that we will support transfers outside the system.. 
actually, this is our problem. Because we want to comply with the policy 
and because we do not close our eyes to potential customers violating 
the policies, we lose those potential customers.


I’m sorry you see those as personal attacks. What I am attacking is the idea of 
contorting policy to suit the profit motives of an ancillary industry to the 
detriment of those actually building and operating infrastructure.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction. I do want to 
have more customers and the removal of the needs based criteria will 
help. But you misunderstand the reasons behind it. I have repeated them 
several times already...


If a potential buyer has the money and wants to buy the resource (in 
order to use them, or keep them for a few years - maybe they want to 
make sure that they will never run out) they will buy them.. through 
financial artifices if they can not do it through the brokers and with 
ARIN's blessing.


It was never my intent 

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

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

One more thing regarding the moving bits businesses..

On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients 
and other organizations? Or are you strictly in the address 
marketing/management business? From everything you have said to me, 
I’ve been led to believe the latter. If you actually sell access or 
transit services, hosting, or anything like that, then I stand corrected.


the fact that service providers are willing to route blocks which are 
not reflected in the registry indicates (at some level) support for more 
transfer-friendly policies, even if they are not advocating for changes 
on this list...


my 2 cents,
elvis
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.