[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call (text revised)

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:47, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at> wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:40:10PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
>> The AC made the following revisions to the text:
>>   - The second sentence in section 2 was changed into two sentences.
>> "Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as
>> "special use" by an IETF RFC. Address space may only be returned by the
>> issuing RIR."
> I am unsure if I am being pedantic here, or if there is an intent
> to exclude legacy space.

That was certainly not the originators intent. Although I agree that
the AC did a less than optimum job of word-smithing; I must admit the
original text was less than perfectly clear as well.

In any case, I think the next sentence saves us from any potential
problem: "Legacy address holders may return address space directly to
the IANA if they so choose."

> Legacy space was not issued by any of the current RIR's.  ARIN may
> be able to claim it is the decendant of the issuer (warning, can
> of worms), but for instance other RIR's had legacy space transferred
> to them years ago.
> It is entirely possible to read that sentence as excluding legacy
> space as a result, which I hope was not the intention.
> s/issuing/responsible/ would clear up any confusion, although I'm
> uncleaer why the sentence is needed at all.  Do we really need to
> state that IANA shouldn't accept back an APNIC block if RIPE is the
> one trying to return it?

I think it makes sense to cover our bases.


> --
>       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at if you experience any issues.