Retaining the needs policy will result in a Whois filled with zombie
corporations, resuscitated from the dead, alive only in the sense of their
Whois listing and (sometimes) up-to-date corporate filing. These zombie
corporations will be owned by companies like David’s, whose business decisions
drive them towards non-policy-compliant address transfers. Whois will not be
updated.
Kind of like how all the addresses sold by Nortel to Microsoft in 2011 were
registered not to Nortel, but to zombie companies acquired by Nortel along the
way. Had not Microsoft elected to negotiate a secret modified Legacy
Registration Services Agreement with ARIN, and instead simply routed the
addresses, we would still see the zombified Bay Networks in Whois. And when and
if Microsoft sold those addresses to another party, Bay Networks would live on.
Please note these are entirely legal business transactions, and to add to the
discussion at NANOG today, in my experience I have never had an upstream fail
to route addresses for a customer whose name did not match the Whois
registrant. Sometimes (usually, actually) they will require an LOA. But as long
as the block is not advertised anywhere else, why would any upstream decide to
stick a finger in their customer’s eye by refusing to route them, since the LOA
covers any conceivable legal risk to the upstream.
Large or small companies, I have never seen them refused. What’s more, I think
any upstream that does refuse knows that their competition will not, which
along with customer circuit revenue drives their decision.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
From: David Huberman
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 3:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
We had a discussion today at NANOG in the ARIN PPC about needs-basis in 8.3
transfers.
I’d like to state the following, and then let’s see where the discussion takes
us:
My team runs an AS. And yep, we’re a pretty big company. We rely on IPv4 today
for most of our numbering, and will continue to do so for the next couple of
years.[1] In the coming year, when we can’t get space from ARIN or other RIRs,
we have to turn to the market for our IP address needs. We may choose to buy
more than a 2 year supply, because it may make business sense for us to do so.
ARIN policy, however, only allows us to take the IP addresses we buy and
transfer the portion which represents a 2 year need. The rest will remain in
the name of whoever sold the IP addresses to us.
Why is this result good for the operator community? Wouldn’t it be better if
ARIN rules allowed us to transfer into our name all the IP addresses which we
now own?
Regards,
/david
[1] We’re working on increasing IPv6 presence in our network and our products,
but large corporations move slowly ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
