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

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:19:07AM -0600, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> Maybe it is just early and my brain isn't working yet, but could someone
> offer a plain English translation or an example?

ARIN Allocates 10.0.0.0/8 to ISP.NET

ISP.NET allocates 10.0.1.0/24 to CriticalInfrastructure.NET.

ISP.NET decides to transfer 10.0.0.0/8 to TooMuchMoney.COM,
and tells CriticalInfrastructure.NET they can't use it
anymore.

CriticalInfrastructure.NET wants to be able to appeal to ARIN, since
it is "Critical Infrastructure" to prevent ISP.NET from transferring
the block, and presumably breaking the critical infrastructure.

Hence my comment that if it really is Critical Infrastructure they
can get a block directly from ARIN under the current policy, renumber
into it now, well in advance of any potential transfer and then
have no issues.  It seems silly to me to hold up the transfer of a
much larger block for one small bit of critical infrastrucutre when
we have a way to deal with critical infrastructure.

However, even without renumbering, it seems like this could also
be solved via contract.  Hopefully CriticalInfrastructure.NET has
a contract with ISP.NET that says they need to give them signicant
notice of any event that would require them to renumber.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090210/9498be97/attachment.sig>