[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out - Last Call
Stephen Woodrow wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:46 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> Stephen Woodrow wrote:
>>> May I suggest a clarification of the language here:
>>>> This reduction does not apply to resources received via section 8.3. An
>>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to
>>>> request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses.
>>> To me, the first sentence is perfectly clear, while the second
>>> sentence adds confusion due to the fact that a request may be for 3 or
>>> 12 months, depending on the state of the IANA free pool. Can the
>>> second sentence be deleted or otherwise adjusted to reflect the intent
>>> as clearly described in the rationale below?
>> The two sentences in question were taken directly from the original Draft
>> Policy that was reviewed by staff and presented at ARIN XXIV. So this part
>> of the text hasn't changed since Dearborn. But, it did get moved around a
>> little though.
>> Personally, I think it is clear, but I wrote it. So, I'm probably not the
>> best judge. What do others think?
>> Just to be clear on the intent, this relates to Transfers to Specified
>> Recipients per NRPM section 8.3. In current policy without the addition of
>> 2009-8, a recipient of a transfer can receive up to a 12 month supply of IP
>> addresses. The intended result with 2009-8 applied is for a recipient of a
>> transfer to continue to receive up to a 12 month supply a 12 month supply of
>> IP addresses. The reduction to a 3 month supply is intended only for
>> allocations from the ARIN free pool, not transfers.
> Ah, my apologies -- I believe I misunderstood section 8.3. I gather
> the key text in 8.3 is "...under current ARIN policies.", which in
> this case would include section 188.8.131.52. Thus, this statement in
> 2009-8 is necessary to avoid limiting transfers to the equivalent of a
> 3-month supply.
Yes that is the key part of 8.3 and the reason that this is included in
this policy. I believe the first sentence accomplishes the intent. I
added to second sentence to abundantly clear that for transfers you can
continue to receive up to a 12 month supply.
So does the second sentence clarify things or only confuse them?
I agree with Owen that from a policy point of view the second sentence
is a no-op. However, I believe the second sentence helps clarify the
One could surmise that this thread is a result of the second sentence
have the intended effect.
> Thanks. No further clarification is required.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952