Don't know if a /12 cap would work if a big guy like tmobile or Microsoft applied for a larger allocation. It is fine for most organizations though.
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Mike Burns" <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, Bill, Brandon, > > Thanks for your input. > Yes, I should have been clearer in that the original proposal called for a > /12 per year per organization cap. > > At least at this point in time, the number of transfers is relatively low, > the block sizes also, and I think the staff at the RIRs would certainly > detect attempts to evade the needs test through transfers to linked shell > corporations. When the block sizes and values get big (/12, $10million), the > number of players willing to risk borderline fraud gets small, in my opinion. > With ARIN staff freed from processing justifications, perhaps they will have > more time to devote to detecting this kind of activity. > > As for the cap size being based not on annual transfers, but instead on > aggregate block size of the receiving entity, I think it worthy of > consideration. It seems like the effect will be to allow most transfer > transactions to proceed without needs tests. Do we think that this form of > cap will have the same effect on the protection against hoarding and price > manipulation? > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Steven Ryerse > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:23 AM > To: Brandon Ross ; William Herrin > Cc: Mike Burns ; ARIN PPML > Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out > (was:Re:Against 2013-4) > > Brandon and Bill, I think you are on the right track. I've said recently > that allocations of IPv4 should be limited to some combination of > organization size and/or current IP allocations. Of course translating that > into a policy that works is tricky but doable I think. Why not take the > needs test completely off the "Minimum Allocation Size" which I think is > currently a /22. Add a standard waiting period between allocations of say 6 > months. Provide some way an organization with a hardship can apply sooner > than 6 months if they have a truly demonstrable need. Then match the > allocation request size with the organizations current allocation's - and/or > their current network size or financial size. > > On the low end some more /22 allocations really aren't going to cause > exhaustion that much faster and on the large size all the way to a /8, only > organizations who are big enough would get a big allocation similar to the > way T-Mobile got 3/4 of a /8 a while back. If a big guy like an AT&T or > Verizon were to apply for a /8, even though ARIN only has one full /8 left, > I'm guessing they could justify it under almost any needs criteria or they > wouldn't be requesting it. I'm sure this community has the knowhow to come > up with policies that accomplish this. > > Under this scenario the needs part of the allocation request is removed and > what remains is a rightsizing policy in its place to reduce hoarding as best > as we can. My gut tells me that changing to this kind of allocation process > would not cause ARIN to run out of addresses much sooner than current > policies. > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of Brandon Ross > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:07 AM > To: William Herrin > Cc: Mike Burns; ARIN PPML > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out > (was:Re:Against 2013-4) > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mike Burns <m...@nationwideinc.com> wrote: >>> What about a needs-free transfer cap? >> >> It'd have to be per-timeframe (per year). A per-transfer cap would be >> meaningless. > > I support the idea, in general, of needs-free transfer cap, however, I'd > suggest that cap be based on the total amount of address space that an entity > controls rather than a per period or per transfer based cap. > > In other words, if you are big enough to justify, in total, a /12 of address > space, then you are big enough to handle the burden of justification. If you > have less space than that, in aggregate, then the needs requirement can be > waived. > > If shell corporations are a concern, then the cap can be made small enough > such that any attempt to corner the market would be easy to detect because of > the sheer number of shells necessary to do so. Perhaps it's possible to hide > the ownership of a dozen, but certainly not 100 or 1000. > > It is worthwhile, however, to point out that if I wanted to hoard IPv4 > address space, there's nothing stopping me from doing that using shell > corporations now, so I don't see how removing the cap for small allocations > really makes much of a difference. > > -- > Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss > +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 > Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross > _______________________________________________ > 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.
