On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:30 AM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Need #1: So that organizations may buy and sell portions of their >> networking business and have the registry accurately reflect the >> current owner of those business elements. >> >> Need #2: So that IP addresses may be quickly and efficiently >> reassigned from one organization's lower-value applications to >> another's higher-value applications. >
> Could you clarify the attributes of each of these requirements? > Is #1 the need to transfer along with operational network, and > #2 the need to move IP addresses to a better economic use, > or do I misunderstand your distinction? Hi John, You have it just about right, although I wouldn't use the word "economic." I see "better use" as a private matter between the releasing and acquiring registrants. Whatever they happen to think "better" is something economic, personal or somehow "closer to God." Not something for which we should have or employ an understanding of at the registry level. > Alas, I was unclear… I said “need for transfer policy” when I was truly > thinking slightly beyond that into “requirements for a transfer policy”, > which would include any secondary objectives. Obviously, if no IPv4 > transfer policy is needed, then there is no requirement with respect to > minimum size block - I perhaps jumped the gun and presumed that > there would clearly be a need identified for such a policy and that other > related requirements of any such policy should be discussed. Roger. Then I'd also add: Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers. Records First. ARIN should publish information about non-compliant transfers that nevertheless happened in real-world terms, even if it has to declare that information to be "invalid" or "unsubstantiated." Potentially incorrect information about the current user is better than no information about the current user. BGP protectionism. The Internet BGP table is somewhat fragile. The problem is exacerbated by a tragedy of the commons problem comprised of the lack of any practical way to exact payment for the routes in the local BGP table from the organization which first announced those routes into the BGP system. To whatever extent practical, transfers should avoid inducing or requiring further fragmentation in the myriad routing tables that comprise that very expensive system. I'm not convinced about having hard policy for minimum transfer sizes. I think that could be better managed as an ARIN business matter by requiring anyone requesting an unusually small transfer to sign a letter to the effect that, "Undersigned registrant acknowledges that address blocks smaller than /24, including the requested block, are ordinarily _not usable_ on the public Internet. Registrant requests transfer despite said impairment." Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ 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.
