[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal -Revised

[Robert Bonomi]

> From arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net  Thu Sep 18 11:54:48 2008
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:54:28 -0600
> From: "Chris Grundemann" <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> To: "Scott Leibrand" <sleibrand at internap.com>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy
> 	Proposal -Revised
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:
> > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> >>> * The IPv4 block must currently be registered for use within
> >>> the ARIN service area.
> >>
> >> What does this mean?
> >
> > The intent there is that it simply has to be ARIN space.  We're open to
> > suggestions for improved wording.
> >
> A quick stab at it:
> // The IPv4 block must currently be registered with ARIN or be
> recognized legacy space within the ARIN service area. //
> IMHO that wording may avoid misconceptions / perceptions about (new)
> geographic limitations.

I will suggest that three things need to be addressed:

  1) that the IPv4 block is covered by a -current- ARIN service agreement
     (either an RSA or LRSA is acceptable).

  2) That the transferee would qualify for a direct assignment/allocation 
     from ARIN of the size of the block that is being transferred.  This 
     specifically _includes_  the 'efficient use of existing addresses'
     requirement.  "Special-case language" is required to cover the situation
     where the existing block is smaller than the current ARIN-issue minimum.

  3) That the transfer be either: 
        a) at least the minimum size that ARIN will presently directly 
           assign/allocate
       -or-
        b) the entire block shown in ARIN records, if smaller than the 
           current assignment/allocation minimum.

Rationale:

(1) prevents anybody from trying do an "ARIN-transfer" of "other RIR" space.
(2) requires that the _transferee_ be in 'ARIN space' -- if they're not, they
    should be getting space under another RIR's  policies.
(3) puts a limit on the amount of 'fragmentation' that can/will occur, 
    insuring that things, in that respect, get 'no worse' than if the space
    was returned to ARIN and re-allocated.

Actual verbage is easily derivable from the above 'specification', with the 
exception of the 'special case' situation in (2).  What kind of a minimum is
needed on the 'planned utilization' (within a 6 mo. time-frame) of a /24 to 
justify it?

Comments, suggestions ?