[LACNIC/Politicas] Sobre las propuestas de transferencia de bloques IPv4

[Nicolas Antoniello]

Estimados,

Creo que vale la pena invertir un poco de tiempo en un análisis de
estas propuestas de transferencia de bloques IPv4 (y otras similares
que seguramente hay y habrá), como la surgida en ARIN:

> Policy Proposal Name: IPv4 Recovery Fund
> Proposal Version: 4.0
> Date: 1/8/2009
> Proposal type: New
> Policy term: Permanent
> Policy statement:
> (Create new section in section 4, represented by "4.X".)

Primero destacar que los comentarios siguientes reflejan mi punto de
vista personal y puede que hasta un tanto simplista a primera vista
del problema, y los invito a debatir y emitir opiniones sobre estos
temas ya que bien podrían ser tratados en la próxima reunión de LAC y
siempre es mejor llevar una opinión formada y debatir sobre estos aquí
en el foro.


Marco histórico y político:

Siempre hemos defendido y ratificado que de hecho, las direcciones IP
(IPv4, IPv6 u otras) no son propiedad de quien las utiliza, sino que
mediante la solicitud y asignación de las mismas por las vías
previstas, se obtiene el DERECHO AL USO de las mismas y nunca su
propiedad.

Ahora bien, partiendo de esta premisa, suena un poco contradictorio el
plantear que alguna entidad obtenga una ganancia vendiendo (de
cualquier forma que esta venta se implemente) las direcciones a otra
entidad... y menos, al "mejor postor".
Entiendo también que la finalidad de los RIR es entre otras, la
administración y asignación del espacio de direcciones de acuerdo con
las políticas preestablecidas y aprobadas en común acuerdo entre los
interesados. En un sentido mas filosófico, la existencia de los RIR
está sujeta a una aprovación de hecho, en la que todos admitimos la
existencia de los mismos y encargamos a estos la gestión del espacio
de direcciones.
Es por esto, que entiendo que no deberíamos perseguir este tipo de
soluciones en las que se comercializa el uso de las direcciones IP.
Menos aún, el poner a los RIR como intermediarios es este tipo de
intercambios que a mi entender, basta leer las políticas de asignación
y uso de direcciones para ver que van en directa contradicción con las
mismas.


Pan para hoy... hambre para mañana:

Igualmente creo que el aprobar estas propuestas de "trueque" de
direcciones IP a cambio de ganancia económica para quien las provee no
representaría más que un aplazamiento sumamente breve del hecho
inevitable del agotamiento del actual espacio de direcciones IPv4.
Es más, podríamos realizar un análisis de los posibles escenarios,
problemas y disputas que esta comercialización de direcciones podría
llegar a generar, que un última instancia, creo que debilitaría e
incidiría negativamente el el rol de los RIR.


¿Soluciones?

La respuesta más clara parece ser la trivial: aquellas entidades que
tengan rangos de direcciones IPv4 que no utilicen (esto es un tanto
difícil de detectar e implementar) deberían devolverlas al RIR
correspondiente a fin de que puedan ser destinadas a otro solicitante,
sin que esto represente ganancia alguna. Podríamos discutir si es
viable algún tipo de incentivo (por un plazo a determinar) para
quienes realicen estas "devoluciones"; incentivos que habría que
analizar para no caer en lo mismo que estamos discutiendo.
Estos incentivos podrían ser por ejemplo, la reducción del monto anual
del derecho al uso de las direcciones IPv4 que se tienen asignadas por
un período a determinar (pero en ningún caso incentivos que redunden
en un "pago" por la venta de las direcciones).

De todas formas, creo que debemos seguir incentivando a los usuarios
de direcciones IP (empresas, ONGs, gobiernos, usuarios finales, etc) a
comenzar (si no lo han hecho aún) a utilizar el protocolo IPv6.

En conclusión, la solución no creo que pase por alargar lo más posible
la capacidad de obtener asignaciones de direcciones IPv4, sino de
facilitar y promover la solicitud y utilización de direcciones IPv6.

Creo que las direcciones IP, necesariamente deben dejar de ser algo
que con lo que los ISP u otras organizaciones hagan la diferencia en
los servicios que brindan, para pasar a ser un "commodity". El valor
del servicio deberá ser sustentado por lo que puedo hacer "ahora que
tengo muchas direcciones públicas" y no por la cantidad de direcciones
públicas que tengo.


¿Opiniones?

Saludos,
Nicolas.





On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Francisco Arias <francisco at arias.com.mx> wrote:
> Me pareció interesante esta propuesta de transferencias de bloques
> IPv4, por si no la han visto.
>
> Básicamente ARIN actúa como intermediario al poner dinero (u otros
> recursos financieros) para recuperar bloques IPv4 que, a su vez cobra
> a sus miembros por la asignación. Esta propuesta, de ser aprobada,
> entraría en vigor al acabarse los recursos IPv4.
>
> Saludos,
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Member Services <info at arin.net>
> Date: Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Recovery Fund - Revised
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>
>
> Policy Proposal
> IPv4 Recovery Fund
>
> This proposal is in the first stage of the ARIN Policy Development
> Process.
>
> The proposal originator submitted a revised version of the proposal.
>
> ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step of the Policy
> Development Process. Staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this
> time, their only aim is to make sure that they understand the proposal
> and believe that the community will as well. Staff will report the
> results of this step to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within 10 days.
>
> The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly scheduled
> meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is
> less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent
> regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
> proposal. The decision will be announced to the PPML.
>
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Policy Proposal Name: IPv4 Recovery Fund
>
> Proposal originator: Leo Bicknell
>
> Proposal Version: 4.0
>
> Date: 1/8/2009
>
> Proposal type: New
>
> Policy term: Permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> (Create new section in section 4, represented by "4.X".)
>
> 4.X IPv4 Recovery Fund
>
> 4.X.1 Implementation Timing
>
>      Upon receiving a valid request for a block larger than ARIN
>      can satisfy from its existing free pool, or, by obtaining
>      additional space from IANA, ARIN shall begin offering financial
>      incentives for returned IP blocks according to this policy.
>
> 4.X.2 Recovery of IPv4 Space
>
>      ARIN believes that organizations should voluntarily return
>      unused and/or unneeded IP resources to the community.  However,
>      upon implementation of this policy, ARIN will offer financial
>      incentives for the return of IPv4 resources to ARIN
>      relinquishment of any future claims to those resources.  ARIN
>      will continue to accept voluntary returns.
>
> 4.X.3 Allocation of Recovered Space
>
>      Once approved for IPv4 space ARIN will ask the requester to
>      specify a bid of how much they are willing to pay for
>      reclamation of address space.  ARIN will use this bid in
>      determining what incentives to offer for return of space.
>      The requester may make a higher bid at any time, which is
>      treated as a brand new bid replacing their old bid.
>
>      If ARIN recovers space and offers it to requester at or below
>      the specified bid within 60 days of the time the bid was
>      made then the bid shall be binding on requester at the price
>      ARIN offers the space.
>
> 4.X.4 Address Block Management
>
>      ARIN may not offer a partial fill, that is provide a block
>      smaller than the one for which the requester was approved.
>
>      ARIN may split recovered blocks into multiple smaller blocks
>      at the staff's discretion using the following principals:
>        - It is unlikely a request will be made for the address
>          block size involved in the next 60 days.
>        - The block is divided into as few parts as practical.
>        - There are enough bids to allow the entire block to be
>          allocated.
>
> 4.X.5 Transparency
>
>      ARIN staff shall make public the current and historical
>      prices of asks, bids, and executed transactions in a manor
>      that facilitates the bidding process.  ARIN staff must
>      regularly report on the amount of address space obtained and
>      distributed via this mechanism, number of blocks subdivided,
>      as well as aggregate financial numbers.
>
> 4.X.6 Cost Recovery
>
>      ARIN shall manage the address space recovery program with a
>      goal of cost recovery.
>
>      ARIN may:
>         - Use ARIN funds to reclaim blocks when there is no specific
>           demand; if such reclamation is deemed in the best interest
>           of the community and there is a significant likelyhood of
>           future demand.
>         - Use a portion of the funds collected under this program
>           to pay for the implementation of this program.
>
> Rationale:
>
> Many have recognized that in order for unused or poorly used IPv4
> resources to be returned to the free pool that financial compensation
> will be required.  This is particularly the case in poorly used
> assets where the current holder may have to expend time and money
> to renumber in order to free the blocks.
>
> This proposal sets up a fund administered by ARIN to encourage the
> return of space.  Effectively ARIN will offer financial incentives to
> return unused or poorly used IPv4 resources and place them back into the
> IPv4 free pool.
>
> The intention is for this activity to be revenue neutral to ARIN.  To
> achieve that goal those requesting IPv4 resources will be requested to
> bid on a one-time payment to the recovery fund to cover the cost of the
> resources they have received.
>
> The proposal is intentionally vague on the exact implementation details
> to staff because:
>
>  - Transactions with those returning space and obtaining space may
>   occur in any order.
>  - The bidding process may need to evolve over time, and may not
>   be as simple as highest bidder wins.  It may include aspects such
>   as a dutch auction style format (all winners pay the lowest winning
>   price), or may include other factors such as which size blocks
>   ARIN has free in an effort to limit deaggregation.
>  - ARIN will have to develop contracts and procedures around this
>   activity that are better suited for staff and legal than the
>   policy process.
>
> Compared to other "transfer proposals", this proposal has the following
> benefits:
>
>  - Maintains that IP addresses are not property.
>  - Maintains the concept that unused addresses should be returned to
>   the free pool.
>  - Maintains need based addressing.
>  - Removes the need for those with excess resources to find those
>   without resources.  There is no need for any sort of listing
>   service, eBay, etc.
>  - All transactions are two party transactions with ARIN as one of
>   the parties.  The potential for multi-party legal disputes is
>   reduced.
>  - ARIN can absorb spikes in supply or demand, creating more level
>   prices over time.
>  - ARIN can provide transparency across all transactions in this
>   system.
>  - Reduces confusion to new entrants over where they should go to
>   receive address space.
>
> Change Log:
>
>  - Changed "monetary" to "financial" to allow for the possibility
>   of ARIN offering things other than direct payment (like fee
>   credits).  Credit: Robert Bonomi.
>  - Updated numbering so there were not two 4.10.2's.  Also changed
>   to using a place holder for section.  Credit: Robert Bonomi
>  - Changed the cost recovery language to be more clear and provide
>   some additional flexibility.
>  - Clarified 4.10.2 about future claims.  Credit: Ted Mittelstaedt
>  - Split 10.X.3 into 10.X.3 and 10.X.3 with better titles.
>  - Left the exact algorithm to staff.  Removed examples as a result.
>
> Timetable for implementation:
>
> Staff should begin developing procedures and updated templates
> immediately.  Policy would not go into effect until the criteria
> listed occurs.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
> --
> fjac
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>