[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-175 Delete Section 8.2

[Astrodog]

On 06/20/2012 11:51 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> Harrison,
>
> I see one problem, 8.3 explicitly does not include IPv6 transfers. The 
> current policy also doesn't include ASNs either, but when ARIN-2012-3 
> is implemented, no later than July 31 according to the web site, that 
> shouldn't be a problem.  However, the proposal that initiated 
> ARIN-2012-3 included IPv6 and there was significant opposition to 
> including IPv6 in 8.3 transfers.  So without some additional 
> modification of 8.3 this policy would have the effect on eliminating 
> IPv6 transfers completely.
>
> Also, ARIN-2011-1 and ARIN-2012-1 should be implemented in a similar 
> time frame as ARIN-2012-3 including interRIR transfers and significant 
> changes to 8.3 and the creation of 8.4.
>
> A couple suggestion first, rather than renumber 8.3 to 8.2 could I 
> suggest you just delete 8.2 and we can put "[Section Number Retired]" 
> in its place.  Please consider if the changes to section 8.3 and the 
> addition of 8.4 with the pending implementation of the policies above 
> change your assessment of the situation.
>
> While I think you have a valid point, but I'm not sure liberalizing 
> transfers for IPv6 will be a idea that gets consensus.  Are there 
> changes to 8.2 that would clarify when it should be used verses 8.3 
> that could accomplish the stated goal?

As far as avoiding renumbering 8.3 goes, that sounds good to me. I 
bounced back and forth on that question when I wrote the proposal and 
don't have much of a preference either way. It sounds like avoiding the 
renumbering is the way to go.

I am not sure how the IPv6 situation should be handled, as there is not 
a good way to prevent the transfer if it's allowed under 8.2... the 
selling entity simply includes some random bit of networking gear that 
can be claimed to be "[using] the transferred resources from the current 
registrant", which is verbiage I'm not a huge fan of.

One option would be to create an "8.3.1", which explicitly allows IPv6 
and ASN transfers in circumstances where equipment purchased from the 
original registrant would require re-numbering.

I'm curious as to the rest of the community's thoughts on this problem. 
The way 8.2 is written currently, it seems to provide a relatively easy 
"end run" around meeting the 8.3 requirements, and without ARIN spending 
quite a bit of time figuring out exactly what it is someone bought, I'm 
not sure there's a way to tell if an equipment sale was performed to 
enable an 8.2 transfer or if it's just part of transferring an ongoing 
operation.

This may be avoidable, if closing the "loophole" in 8.2 is worth 
liberalising IPv6 transfers.

Ideally, I'd like to end up with a proposal that removes "Why are you 
transferring these resources?" as a factor, so that registrants can know 
going in exactly how a transfer will be performed, and ARIN doesn't have 
to try to deduce what registrants are actually intending to do.

--- Harrison