[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Tue Mar 6 04:52:39 EST 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast ...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> What exactly does "going out of business" mean? A company can be > absorbed by another through a purchase and the brand name tossed away > while still maintaining the need for the resources. Isn't that the key to all of this? IP addresses aren't assets and aren't intellectual property. They don't belong to persons or to corporations. They are assigned for use in a network and as long as there is a network which needs them, then they can be transferred. Admittedly there are some grey areas such as networks which are partly dismantled or temporarily shut down, but if there is a network running or about to be running, at the time ARIN is contacted and there is some kind of prior relationship between the transferee and the transferor then we should transfer resources. In any case, the number one issue is whether the size of the address blocks are justified by the new assignee. Even if they have a legal document where the previous assignee says that they can have the addresses, if they no longer justify the block size, then they should not get them. We need to be careful with changes to policy around JUSTIFICATION because as we wind down to the end of the IPv4 address space over the next 3 years or so, the question of what is justfication will become a hot issue. As will audits of address usage. > In a way I can see this saying the transfers can never happen, > meaning that if I buy someone's hosting service I may have to apply > for new addresses. Worse is the thought that I'd have to renumber if > I don't get the transfer of resources. This seems like the typical simple case where the buyer continues to operate exactly the same network infrastructure and therefore has exactly the same justification as the original assignee. Seems to me that we save money by simply doing a paper transfer of the same addresses to make the new owner, the new assignee. > I pretty much agree with the intent of this proposal...it's the words > I am quibbling about in the previous section. Seems to always be a big problem with ARIN policy proposals. At least there is a move towards clearer language and less ambiguity. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM
- Next message: [ppml] Proposed Policy: eGLOP Multicast ...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list