- Previous message: Drew Linsalata: "Re: 3rd party network monitoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Owen DeLong (no email)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2008 - 12:28:42 EST
The same text below was just posted to the ARIN PPML. It is being
posted here because it relates to a BoF session held at NANOG 42.
Follow-up should be exclusively on the ARIN PPML. Instructions
for subscribing to PPML are at the bottom of this message.
================================
As most of you already know, members of the ARIN AC conducted a BoF
session at NANOG 42 to try and gather additional community feedback
about IPv4 Exhaustion, and, specifically, the AC Authored IPv4
transfer policy.
Due to last minute scheduling, the BoF was held at a time which
conflicted with the Peering BoF and the IPv6 Tutorial. Despite
these conflicts, the BoF was surprisingly well attended and we
were able to have a good and productive discussion.
Early in the discussion, it was discovered that most present had
not come to a clear understanding of the Transfer Policy Proposal.
Some explanation and clarification was provided by various members
of the AC.
Some key provisions that were discussed were:
+ Requirement for both parties in a transfer to
sign an RSA
This is in keeping with preserving
contractual parity in the transfer process.
+ Intent of the listing service
The details of the listing service were omitted
from the policy proposal due to time constraints
and to preserve some flexibility to work with ARIN
staff on the design and criteria to fully meet the
needs of ARIN and the community.
Generally, the expectation is that the listing
service data will be as open and public as possible
with the intent of allowing as much information as
possible to potential transferors/transferees prior
to engaging in the process.
+ Effects on Current policy
Current merger/acquisition/divestiture policy remains
unchanged. The proposed re-titling of the policy
focused on merger/acquisition merely as an oversight,
not in an intent to change the handling of such
transfers. Hopefully this will be addressed in the
next revision of the policy proposal.
+ Implementation date
IANA Free pool runout was chosen because it is
objectively factual. ARIN runout will be staggered
with ARIN unable to issue larger blocks before it
runs out of smaller ones. Additionally, using IANA
runout allows the policy and associated market to
kind of spin up and gain some experience before
ARIN runs out.
+ Potential Legal Issues
Nobody present at the BoF was prepared or qualified
to speak on behalf of ARIN from a legal perspective.
As a result, questions regarding legal ramifications
were deferred as out of scope for the BoF session.
ARIN Counsel will present a review of the proposed
policy at the ARIN meeting in Denver. It will also
be posted to the PPML.
In general, the idea of a transfer policy was received with a neutral
to positive response. There were no strong negative reactions
expressed.
There were several questions about likely efficacy and whether this
policy would actually accomplish anything.
Leo Bicknell made the point that without this policy or something
like it, the world becomes set in stone after IPv4 runout. Haves
have and have nots have not and there's no way for that to change.
With this proposal, there's at least the possibility if folks can
come to agreement on the subject.
Thanks to everyone who attended the BoF. Your input was very useful
to the AC. I encourage anyone interested in further participating
in the policy process to subscribe to the ARIN PPML
(http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml) and post your comments
there.
Respectfully submitted,
Owen DeLong
ARIN AC
|
|
|