[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policyfor IPv4 Address

[Kevin Kargel]

OK, most of the time I can at least understand the intent of what is being
proposed..  
In this case I am at a loss as to what the issue is much less what the
language proposes..  
Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could someone
offer a plain English translation or an example?

Kevin
________________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer
Policyfor IPv4 Address


On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com> wrote:
On 2/10/09 1:58 PM, Member Services wrote:
> Policy statement:
>
> Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address
>
> Critical infrastructure providers may appeal to ARIN for final review
> and decision of any full or partial transfer of IPv4 address space that
> has been in use serving the community for consecutive periods of time.
>
I don't fully understand what is written here.  Is the issue that when
an end user network offering critical resources changes providers they
wish to retain PA space?


In this case, CI is likely representing commercial Internet Exchanges (IX).
Right now, I believe that EP.NET is provisioning addrs to exchanges. I am
guessing that this is a policy to insure continuity in any sort of exchange
of those particular addresses blocks, so as to not disrupt IX operations. I
don't think this is any sort of CI allocation issue, related to micro
allocation policy for example. 

Interesting.

Not speaking for Chris, or EP, 

Marty

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090210/be812aea/attachment.bin>