How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this
idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request
accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new
no-justification regime?
For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Hi Bill,
I chose /16 as a starting point for negotiations because it is a common size
I see in the brokerage business.
Removing the needs test serves many purposes. One that I have considered is
the possibility for an Inter-RIR policy with RIPE.
I think this change at least lays the groundwork for that. I believe that a
"compatible needs-based policy" would be a match for RIPE up to the point
where ARIN needs tests would apply, since RIPEs needs test for transfers is
less rigorous than ARIN's currently. But if ARIN drops the needs test up to
a certain size, my hope is that the ARIN would recognize that the policies
are now compatible for transfers lower than that certain size. I understand
your reluctance to expose the remains of the free pool to possible predation
through rinse-repeat allocations and sales, but the one per year allowance
inhibits that, and we don't expect the free pool to be there much more than
a year from now anyway.
Of course it also answers the needs of those who can't get addresses from
their upstreams but don't qualify for the /20 minimum, without applying any
additional draw on the free pool, but instead utilizing already allocated
but unused space. We had a customer call today on just this issue. He has an
acute need for a /24. His upstream has imposed a limit of 128 addresses.
What can he do? He can acquire a shell corp with a /24 but those are few and
far between. Absent that, what are his options? Answer is, he can lease the
addresses or engage in an out-of-policy legacy transfer, both of which
affect Whois accuracy negatively.
You ask how we can assess the effects of this policy, and I am not sure.
Perhaps a count of small blocks transferred? If that increases, can we
ascribe any rise to this policy? Probably not. Aborted 8.2 transfers don't
apply. Maybe a count of aborted 8.3 transfers and 8.4 transfers?
Granted that it will be difficult to assess the impact of this policy beyond
the anectodal hallelujahs from those who have been unable to secure
addresses under current policy. But more important to me is the
identification and assessment of potential downsides or risks. Are there any
downsides or risks which you feel are important to address?
Would you support this policy if it were of limited duration and a smaller
size, as Owen suggested?
Regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
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.
