[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal -Revised
bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com
Thu Sep 18 16:58:16 EDT 2008
> 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
b) the entire block shown in ARIN records, if smaller than the
current assignment/allocation minimum.
(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
Comments, suggestions ?
More information about the ARIN-PPML