[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 105: Simplified M&A transfer policy
On 12/22/2009 3:16 PM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> I absolutely agree and was going to respond to Bill's previous email to agree with his third point on the cost of re-numbering.
> This idea of forcing an entity to go through the costs and risks associated with re-numbering is I believe the single largest DISINCENTIVE to IPv6 we can perpetuate!
> Forcing PA space as the only option for most entities to deploy IPv6 has not, nor will it ever fly! It carries too much cost and far too much risk to business continuity.
Do you see this as a problem with Policy Proposal 105: Simplified M&A
transfer policy, or are you making a more general point?
Assuming you're referring to proposal 105, can you clarify for me what
in the proposed policy drives the renumbering concern? I'm afraid I'm
missing something, or that I wrote the proposal in such a way that it's
causing unnecessary confusion.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Joe Maimon
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:00 PM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 105: Simplified M&A transfer
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> In the event that number resources of the acquired/merged
>>>> organization(s) are no longer efficiently utilized at the time ARIN
>>>> becomes aware of the transaction, through a transfer request or
>>>> otherwise, ARIN will work with the resource holder(s) to return or
>>>> aggregate resources as appropriate via the processes outlined in
>>>> sections 4.6, 4.7, or 12 of the NRPM.
>>> I think that there's an issue here. I think that we need to talk about
>>> the number resources of the resultant combined organization rather
>>> than of the acquired/merged organization... Here's why...
>>> The term acquired/merged could be construed to refer only to the
>>> resources that were acquired without regard for the resources already
>>> held by the acquiring organization. Let's say that two organizations
>>> A and B merge. Prior to merger, A efficiently used 17 /24s and held
>>> a /19, while B efficiently used a /23 and held a /22. The combined
>>> usage is 19 /24s which would justify a /19, but, would not justify the
>>> /22 of additional space. The /22 should be returned in this case and
>>> be renumbered into the /19.
>> I think that bringing the possibility of renumbering and reclamation is
>> somewhat of a disincentive to getting people into the door in the first
>> place. If you are buying a network that you may have to renumber, you
>> might want to think twice about it - or wait until you finish
>> renumbering it before going to 8.3.
>> What is the priority for the goals of 8.2 and how much efficiency should
>> we let slide to achieve them?
>> These changes could make 8.3 more attractive than 8.2
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.