[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out - Last Call

[Stephen Woodrow]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:46 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> Stephen Woodrow wrote:
>>
>> May I suggest a clarification of the language here:
>>
>>> This reduction does not apply to resources received via section 8.3. An
>>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to
>>> request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses.
>>
>> To me, the first sentence is perfectly clear, while the second
>> sentence adds confusion due to the fact that a request may be for 3 or
>> 12 months, depending on the state of the IANA free pool. Can the
>> second sentence be deleted or otherwise adjusted to reflect the intent
>> as clearly described in the rationale below?
>
> The two sentences in question were taken directly from the original Draft
> Policy that was reviewed by staff and presented at ARIN XXIV.  So this part
> of the text hasn't changed since Dearborn.  But, it did get moved around a
> little though.
>
> Personally, I think it is clear, but I wrote it.  So, I'm probably not the
> best judge.  What do others think?
>
> Just to be clear on the intent, this relates to Transfers to Specified
> Recipients per NRPM section 8.3. In current policy without the addition of
> 2009-8, a recipient of a transfer can receive up to a 12 month supply of IP
> addresses. The intended result with 2009-8 applied is for a recipient of a
> transfer to continue to receive up to a 12 month supply a 12 month supply of
> IP addresses.  The reduction to a 3 month supply is intended only for
> allocations from the ARIN free pool, not transfers.

Ah, my apologies -- I believe I misunderstood section 8.3. I gather
the key text in 8.3 is "...under current ARIN policies.", which in
this case would include section 4.2.4.4. Thus, this statement in
2009-8 is necessary to avoid limiting transfers to the equivalent of a
3-month supply.

Thanks. No further clarification is required.

--Steve