I think the fact that organizations are regularly going around the policies in
place is their continued voting that the policies are way too unreasonable and
arbitrary. If the policies were workable for them they might go thru ARIN
rather than around them. The needs tests need to go, and once they do, real
progress could be made getting the database updated to be more accurate - and
oh by the way real organizations with real needs could actually get their
needed resources thru ARIN's established channels. It should not be ARIN's
role to impose policies that completely shut out organizations like ours from
getting resources. That is what has happened to us and that is why so many
organization keep going around ARIN to avoid the hassle and the chance that
some arbitrary policy will shut them out somehow too. But there I go again,
trying to impart some common sense where common sense is not welcome.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Mike Burns
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 11:17 AM
To: Blake Dunlap; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
Hi Blake,
We can be wistful for the lack of progress of RPKI or the fact that addresses
are regularly routed for customers who are not the Whois registrants, but we
are powerless to change those things, community-wide.
We are a community of private network operators for the most part. We are
stakeholders tasked primarily with maintaining a registry of uniqueness of IP
addresses. We need to ask ourselves whether the purported benefits of
maintaining a needs-test for every change of registrant in Whois is worth the
risk to the registry and the expenditure of fungible ARIN staff resources.
I elucidated one such risk, which is the risk of un-registered acquisitions of
shell corporations which are incentivized by the lack of a needs test.
John Curran acknowledged this risk.
I offered an example of one of the few publicly demonstrable cases of this in
Whois, related to the public information surrounding the Microsoft/Nortel deal.
I am aware of many more but can not disclose them.
People seek to frame this issue as if it were this question: "Should we change
the rules just because some people will break them?"
My answer to that is yes, of course we should, unless the rule provides some
overriding benefit.
So my question for the community is "What is the benefit we realize by
insisting on ARIN team review of every single transfer, down to /24, and is it
worth ARIN ticket time delay and the risk of decreased Whois accuracy?"
And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an acceptable
balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of the needs test?
Regards,
Mike Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: Blake Dunlap
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 10:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers
I would actually prefer to find a way to resolve the problem of entities not
caring about their whois being accurate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H resources being
properly registered to them. It's rather pointless to have any rules without
them actually mattering.
RPKI had hope, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
-Blake
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, David, an organization can be a bad actor and tie up excess
> resources without transferring them in violation of the spirit and
> intent of the policy.
>
> Or, you could recognize that the intent of the policy and the reason
> for that policy is to make those addresses available to other entities
> with a more immediate need and behave in the spirit of the community.
>
> We can’t make the letter of the law force all organizations to be good
> actors. It’s just not practical. The best we can do is provide policy
> that expresses the general intent of the community and hope that the
> majority of people and organizations are good actors.
>
> So while your ability to circumvent the intent of the policy within
> the “letter of the law” is not in the interest of the community,
> compliance with the spirit and intent of the policy is, in fact good
> for the operator community. Of course, it is inevitably up to each
> organization whether to act as a good citizen of the community or not.
> This is true even in cases where the policy is iron clad and there are
> certainly no shortage of examples of bad actors throughout history.
>
> Owen
>
> On Jun 3, 2014, at 12:31 PM, David Huberman
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
