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-2013-1 Section 8.4 Inter-RIR transfers
of ASNs (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: Draft policy ARIN-2013-1 Section 8.4 Inter-RIR transfers
of ASNs (David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:14:47 -0500
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: David Farmer <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft policy ARIN-2013-1 Section 8.4
Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:19 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, explain to me how it huts the community if I have an extra ASN and
> justified need for IP addresses and my friend has justified need for an ASN
> and extra IP addresses, and we want to trade. This sound like a match made
> in heaven, as contrived as it is. But, as I described it no money changes
> hands and resources get used more efficiently, sounds like good stewardship
> to me. But you seem to want to stand in the way of it. Because unless the
> two transactions are atomic and linked the first will go through and the
> second will be blocked by the language you support.
That wouldn't be prohibited.
What would be prohibited would be if you got IP addresses from ARIN just a few
months ago and then traded them to your friend for the ASN you should have
gotten instead of the IP addresses.
> As long as justified operational need is being fulfilled, why do we the
> community need to stick our nose in things. There our those that believe
> maintaining justified operational need, is sticking the community's nose to
> for into things already.
Yes, there are those that believe ARIN should have no policy role at all. I
don't agree with them.
> I support the prohibition from being the source of resources after having and
> received resources (of the same type) within the last 12 months to discourage
> gaming the operational need requirement. But, your operational need for one
> type of resources has nothing with your operational need for other types of
> resources.
In reality, there is little or no operational need for ASN transfers to begin
with. They are strictly a vanity proposition. There is no shortage of ASNs
available from ARIN.
> If someone received an IPv6 allocation, successfully deployed it, and then
> was somehow able to reduce their need for IPv4; your interpretation would
> prevent them from transferring their no longer needed IPv4 resources to
> someone else.
Fair and valid point. I would support amending things so that acquisition of
IPv6 resources is not a consideration.
> Owen, your wrong.
Merely because I disagree with you does not make me wrong.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:42:24 -0500
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft policy ARIN-2013-1 Section 8.4
Inter-RIR transfers of ASNs
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 3/20/13 18:14 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:19 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, explain to me how it huts the community if I have an extra ASN and
>> justified need for IP addresses and my friend has justified need for an ASN
>> and extra IP addresses, and we want to trade. This sound like a match made
>> in heaven, as contrived as it is. But, as I described it no money changes
>> hands and resources get used more efficiently, sounds like good stewardship
>> to me. But you seem to want to stand in the way of it. Because unless the
>> two transactions are atomic and linked the first will go through and the
>> second will be blocked by the language you support.
>
> That wouldn't be prohibited.
Ok, I transfer my ASN to my friend, he receives it. He is now
prohibited from being the source of the transfer of his IP addresses to
me, because he just received a ASN transfer. Unless the two
transactions can be linked and processed together at exactly the same
time, the second transaction violates your clause. And, I don't think
there is anyway to link the two transactions. Furthermore, if I agreed
with my friend I would transfer my ASN now, and he would transfer his IP
addresses next week after he frees them up then there is no realistic
way for ARIN to link the transactions.
> What would be prohibited would be if you got IP addresses from ARIN just a
> few months ago and then traded them to your friend for the ASN you should
> have gotten instead of the IP addresses.
That's prohibited under the language Scott proposes. I would be the
source of resources of the SAME TYPE that I just got from ARIN less that
12 months ago.
>> As long as justified operational need is being fulfilled, why do we the
>> community need to stick our nose in things. There our those that believe
>> maintaining justified operational need, is sticking the community's nose to
>> for into things already.
>
> Yes, there are those that believe ARIN should have no policy role at all. I
> don't agree with them.
>
>> I support the prohibition from being the source of resources after having
>> and received resources (of the same type) within the last 12 months to
>> discourage gaming the operational need requirement. But, your operational
>> need for one type of resources has nothing with your operational need for
>> other types of resources.
>
> In reality, there is little or no operational need for ASN transfers to begin
> with. They are strictly a vanity proposition. There is no shortage of ASNs
> available from ARIN.
This is where we disagree, but that is an old argument.
>> If someone received an IPv6 allocation, successfully deployed it, and then
>> was somehow able to reduce their need for IPv4; your interpretation would
>> prevent them from transferring their no longer needed IPv4 resources to
>> someone else.
>
> Fair and valid point. I would support amending things so that acquisition of
> IPv6 resources is not a consideration.
So, IPv6 not should be linked with IPv4 or ASNs, but IPv4 and ASNs
should be? Why? It makes no sense!
>> Owen, your wrong.
>
> Merely because I disagree with you does not make me wrong.
Sorry, I spoke badly, it's wrong to link the different types of resources.
> Owen
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 9
****************************************
