[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run-Out - Last Call
mysidia at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 17:44:47 EST 2009
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> In general I see removing the second sentence as a no-op. I don't think it
> adds nor do I think it removes clarity in either case.
> Having said that, unnecessary text is just that, and, if removing it is a
> no-op, it is unnecessary text.
However, that doesn't mean it's unnecessary. Also: I wonder what
should happen if an organization should receive some resources via
section 8.3 transfer and then later that year request some resources
not by transfer?
"An organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue
to request up to a 12 month supply of IP addresses."
Taken on its own, someone could interpret this to mean their receipt
of addresses in the past now entitles them to request a 12 month
supply of addresses to be allocated by ARIN, instead of the reduced
3 month amount.
Also, if 8.3 were later revised, so it became more complicated, or
a later revision to 8.3 says "18 month supply" instead of "12
month supply" for transfers.
Now a change to this policy would be required as well
So I do see a case for revising the exact language for 22.214.171.124.
"This reduction applies only to resources received directly from ARIN.
The size of a transfer that an organization may justify and receive
receive under section 8.3 is not restricted by this section."
More information about the ARIN-PPML