[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal -Revised
sleibrand at internap.com
Thu Sep 18 17:06:24 EDT 2008
Milton L Mueller wrote:
> You ACs have been working hard. It is improved! A few comments based on
> an unfortunately (but necessarily) hasty review
>> * The IPv4 block must currently be registered for use within the ARIN
>> service area.
> I think you mean, "The IPv4 block must currently be within the range of
> address blocks allocated to ARIN." Who cares _where_ they use it?
Based on the results of the PPML poll, we also want to make sure the
language covers legacy blocks, not just blocks allocated to/by ARIN. How
about this? I think it would satisfy your concerns as well as the others
raised this morning:
"The IPv4 block must be administered by ARIN, for example as part of an
address block assigned by IANA to ARIN, or as part of a legacy address
block allocated within the ARIN service area."
>> * An interested transferee must seek pre-qualification from ARIN to
>> confirm its eligibility to receive a transfer (including satisfaction
>> need according to current ARIN policies) before making any
>> for transfer. Upon pre-qualification, ARIN will provide the transferee
>> with documentation of the pre-qualification, including the size (CIDR
>> prefix length) of the largest IPv4 address block the transferee is
>> eligible to receive, and the expiration date of the pre-qualification.
> How quickly can ARIN issue this?
Current need justification can be very quick, when a requester provides
all the necessary documentation in their initial request, or can take a
little bit of back-and-forth if the requester has to go dig up
documentation on current usage. I'd guess that the same sort of
timeframes would apply to a pre-qualification request, as the same
eligibility checks would apply.
>> * An interested transferor may seek pre-qualification from ARIN to
>> confirm its eligibility to offer a transfer before offering IPv4
>> resources for transfer.
> I would reword as "...may seek pre-qualification from ARIN to
> authenticate its prior assignment or allocation of the address resources
> offered for transfer."
There is also the question of whether the 12-month clock has elapsed such
that the space is eligible for transfer.
>> 8.3.8. Organizations under Common Ownership or Control
>> If an IPv4 transferor or transferee is under common ownership or
>> with any other organization that holds one or more IPv4 blocks, the
>> transfer request must report all such organizations under common
>> ownership or control. When evaluating compliance with IPv4 Simple
>> Transfer conditions, ARIN may consider a transfer request in light of
>> requests from other organizations under common ownership or control.
> I see why you might want to apply this provision to recipients (i.e.,
> buyers - still afraid of that word, eh?) I don't think it makes any
> sense to apply it to transferororors (sellers).
LOL. (/me imagines people talking about transferororors and
transfererereeeees at the L.A. meeting) :) The problem with the terms
buyer and seller is the question of what's being bought and sold. I don't
really want to start talking about the "buyer of a set of contractual
rights to unique registration records and associated registration
services", or whatever the proper legal terminology would be, since you
can't buy the numbers themselves. :)
> Do organizations currently have the right to freely transfer IPv4 blocks
> among their subsidiaries without approval or review from ARIN? If so, I
> guess I understand what this provision is driving at.
> This provision seems to imply that ARIN may use the possibility of
> internal transfers as a criterion in approving transfers. If ARIN is
> confronted with more transfererereeeees (buyers) than transferorororors
> (sellers), then it might say to a prospective transfererereeeee "get the
> addresses from other departments in your company."
> You might want to clarify this.
That's part of it. Imagine a large company with multiple subsidiaries,
one of which requests and receives a large block of addresses just before
ARIN runs out. If the other subsidiary then turns around 6 months later
and wants to offer (different) addresses for transfer, this clause would
require that they tell ARIN about the other subsidiaries, so that ARIN can
consider whether their behavior, in aggregate, complies with the policy.
In this case, it would be the transferor under 2008-2 who'd be out of line
with the policy, hence the need for common-control disclosure there as well.
Thanks for your comments,
More information about the ARIN-PPML