On 6/5/2015 5:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived
from the IPv4
allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should
determine those
parties who should be issued IPv4 address space. This is very
reasonable
assumption when the resources are coming from the IPv4 regional
free pool,
but it is unclear what purpose is fulfilled in making the same
determination
when the resources are coming from another party.
It *does* make sense to do a similar needs test of transfers as long as
there is also a free pool, specifically to discourage folks from
transferring addresses away and backfilling them from the free pool.
Interestingly, now that we've made transfer have a different horizon
than allocation, we do see organizations choosing to go that route *even
though* addresses are available from the free pool.
If the community can agree on a common statement of the purpose for
the IPv4
transfer policy (which will take active engagement towards trying
to understand
everyone’s concerns), then it might be possible to lay groundwork
for simpler
transfer policy for which everyone understands the underlying
basis, and thus
has an much easier time supporting.
Agreed. Would be nice to know why there is a transfer policy, and why it
might have limitations.
So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an
IPv4 transfer
policy, and why? I will get things going with a potential
less-contentious
example - it is quite possible that the an IPv4 transfer policy is
necessary
to insure that blocks that are transferred are of a minimum size.
While the
ISP community _may_ be capable of dealing with a flood of /30’s
suddenly
appearing and seeking routing, it is quite unclear if there is any
benefit in
creating that potential condition, and there is certainly risk to
the Internet if
ISPs succumb to the customer pressure and route such in large quantity.
I don't think that's any of ARIN's business. ARIN can issue blocks of
whatever size it wants, and networks can choose (or not) to route them.
Can we start with a deliberate reasoned discussion on this one
aspect of the
IPv4 transfer policy, and if common ground is found, move on to any
other
perceived transfer policy requirements?
I do think that a transfer policy should require that the transferring
party be able to show that those addresses are theirs to transfer.
And I do think that holding transfers when there's a dispute is probably
a good idea.
Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
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.
