Sticking to the actual draft policy which is being proposed, in a world of
IPv4 shortages I think that any available numbers available for directed
transfer continue the current policy of "operational use" in order to
receive IPv4 directed transfer addresses. The proposal would allow the
numbers to be used privately, which in most cases can simply be done
without ARIN by using the RFC 1918 set of addresses or the ones assigned
for use in CGN's. This is the current policy the draft is attempting to
change, and I think that is wrong and vote NO on the Draft Policy for that
reason. Leasing is actually just a side issue of getting rid of the
operational use policy.
This exact policy (8.5.2) is the same one that I have been thinking of
drafting a Draft Policy amendment to as well. My idea is that
"operational use" should also include having and using IPv6. 8.5.2 appears
in the conditions of receiving directed transfers. I believe that in
today's world, 8 years after the last /8's were assigned, having and USING
an IPv6 block of addresses should be a condition of receiving any future
directed transfer of IPv4 space.
During the discussion of that topic here, it was mentioned how would this
be enforced? It could be enforced by proving the ability to exchange data
using that IPv6 block with ARIN. That could include email, an ftp or
website provided by ARIN as a test, or even the use of ARIN Online.
Check the headers of this message, and you will see I sent it to the list
via IPv6. I have had IPv6 for 12 years. If a small company can do it, a
larger one with the money to pay someone for a directed transfer can
clearly afford to have IPv6 as well.
I think it is time to use the carrot we have (the right to receive
additional IPv4 space by ARIN policy) to get organizations to do what is
right and have and use IPv6 as a condition of using that policy.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
You asked me some questions so I will reply to them inline, and because we have
drifted, this will be my last post on this directly. I mentioned 2050 to
highlight the
unchanging stewardship requirements, conservation and registration, as an
effort to demonstrate that your attempts at conservation impact our primary
responsibility
which hasn’t changed although 2050 is superseded.
It also says: "ISPs are required to utilize address space in an efficient
manner. To this end, ISPs should have documented justification available for each
assignment. The regional registry may, at any time, ask for this information.
If the information is not available, future allocations may be impacted.In
extreme
cases, existing loans may be impacted."
What's wrong with that statement ? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Why do you wish to reduce substantially the roles of the RIRs and pass them to
private companies ?
My reply:
I asked you what was wrong with RIPE being reduced to a recordkeeping role but
you did not answer. What is wrong with the statement above is that there are no
future
allocations. So what is the threat of audit? That threat used to keep some
people in line, but there were never any RIRs who ever asked, at any time, for
justification of older allocations without evidence of abuse. So something
that never really happened that threatened a toothless consequence is not a
good guidepost
for making policy in today’s era. That policy failed to bring unutilized
addresses into productive use. A regime of intensive auditing and recovery
would have been
expensive and fraught. Your arguments were made at the time this community
decided to allow transfers and they were deemed to be unconvincing. And not
just at ARIN.
Every RIR allows transfers now, no RIR audits and recovers addresses for
utilization. Those ideas are dated, but if you think this is the right way
forward, you
should propose a policy designed to recover addresses no longer used for their
original purpose and see how it flies.
I do wish to reduce the role of the RIRS because that role is now redundant,
because the role of conservation is now played, and better played, by the
market.
It also defines Conservation as: "Fair distribution of globally unique Internet
address space according to the operational needs of the end-users and Internet
Service
Providers operating networks using this address space. Prevention of stockpiling in
order to maximize the lifetime of the Internet address space."
What is wrong with that statement ? Sounds also pretty reasonable.
Or do you think that only assigning resources to those who can pay more will be
the best and more fair way to maximize the lifetime of the Internet address
space
version 4 to those who really need them to get connected ?
RIRs have been the ones who check these operational needs impartially (with no
economic interests in mind) and according to the current policies. Why remove
it from
them and pass to private companies to do ?
My reply:
There is nothing wrong with the statement in its appropriate milieu, when it
was written, but things have changed.
Yes, I do think that assigning resources to those who can pay more is the best
and most fair way to maximize IPv4 lifetime.
RIPE has been around longer than ARIN and RIPE does not feel the need to check
these operational needs. You keep neglecting that and so I keep reminding you
that RIPE
is an operational RIR without a needs test for years. I am not asking to remove
the RIR and replace it with a private company, so I don’t understand your last
question. There should be no needs tests, nobody doing needs tests, neither RIR
nor private company.
Regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
