relevant panel discussion from INET Denver
Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43CGqq70rM> <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03> discussion has ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) adopt similar policy. We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check). If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the other RIR has rules that hinder)? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
* Mikael Abrahamsson
Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v43CGqq70rM>
<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03> discussion has ended, hoping for a positive outcome, and that ARIN (and other RIRs) adopt similar policy.
Interesting, thanks for the link!
We need an IPv4 market that is liquid but where we still assure that the seller of addresses have the right to sell them, and that the buyer is properly registered in the system (database needs to be in check).
There are conjecture/speculation regarding the existence or formation of an IPv4 «black market», which runs counter to the goal of keeping the registry up to date and correct. I think one could make the argument that 2013-03 would counteract this to some extent - the fewer hurdles need to be overcome in order to perform a "legit" transfer, in particular concepts like need evaluation, there is a reduced chance that that the transfer will done without informing the NCC. That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to begin with.
If 2013-03 is accepted, are there any other hurdles within RIPE when it comes to fairly clean and hassle-free transfer of addresses both inter-RIR and intra-RIR (where RIPE has rules that hinder, not that the other RIR has rules that hinder)?
For starters, there's no policy that allows transfer of PI blocks. So if an enterprise, who is not an LIR, wants to obtain/buy address space for PI-like use, they'd have to do it "in the shadows", so to speak. (They would have the option of joining the NCC in order to become a LIR, obtain the address space, and assign all of it to themselves though, but if they have no plans of ever making assignments to downstream customers, I suspect that's simply too many hoops to jump through for some.) Also, I don't think an existing PI holder could transfer his address space to a LIR (and convert it to PA in the process), which someone might want to do at some point. AIUI, the PI/PA distinction was put in place to limit fragmentation. One might wonder if it has any utility now that all the space has been handed out. Tore
At the ARIN meeting last week The RIPE 2013-3 proposal was discussed extensively at two "lunch table talks," one of which I attended. On the day I attended, there was very little attempt to defend needs assessments per se. The comments centered instead on how passage of 2013-3 would prevent inter-RIR transfers until and unless ARIN followed suit. Assessments of the likelihood of that happening differed. Some felt that once RIPE took the first step and demonstrated that the world did not end, ARIN would be likely to follow suit; others felt that RIPE would reverse its policy and institute some perfunctory, liberalized form of needs assessment in order to qualify for inter-RIR transfers. Also, I'd like address this claim of Tore's:
That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to begin with.
Really? Post-depletion, all IPv4 allocations will be through transfers. While eliminating needs assessments will reduce bureaucracy, if there are no transfers under what conditions would RIPE-NCC be doing IPv4 needs assessments? Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org
* Milton L Mueller
Also, I'd like address this claim of Tore's:
That said: I don't really consider 2013-03 a "transfer policy proposal". My motivation for making the proposal is to reduce the bureaucracy and paperwork required to operate my LIR and make assignments to my customers. I would still have made the proposal even if the current address policy didn't have any provisions allowing for transfers to begin with.
Really? Post-depletion, all IPv4 allocations will be through transfers. While eliminating needs assessments will reduce bureaucracy, if there are no transfers under what conditions would RIPE-NCC be doing IPv4 needs assessments?
My motivation is primarily to reduce the LIRs' amount of paperwork and bureaucracy - not the RIPE NCC's. Currently, all LIRs are required by policy to perform need evaluation for every single assignment they make from their allocations. The RIPE NCC doesn't get involved, unless 1) the LIR willingly asks the NCC to help out with the evaluation, 2) the assignment exceeds the LIR's Assignment Window, or 3) the LIR is later subjected to an LIR Audit. Filling out, evaluating, and archiving all this paperwork takes up a lot of my time, time I'd much rather spend on deploying IPv6, for example. I want to be a technocrat, not a bureaucrat. Hence the proposal. Don't get me wrong, though. That 2013-03 reduces the NCC's workload and the LIRs' bureaucratic hurdles wrt transfers, are also positive effects. But they are not my main motivation for making the proposal. Thanks for the update from the ARIN meeting! Tore
Hi,
Panel discussion from INET in Denver regarding IPv4 transfer market.
Interesting! Thanks, Sander
participants (4)
-
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Milton L Mueller -
Sander Steffann -
Tore Anderson