[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Feb 10 15:13:41 EST 2009
I WOULD SUPPORT this policy IF the following changes were made to it:
1) A definition of what constituted a "Critical infrastructure provider"
(ie: C.I.P.) was added that was REASONABLE. Someone's webserver with
a couple hundred customers on it does not, IMHO, constitute a CIP.
2) The allocation/assignment to the C.I.P. constituted 50% or greater
of the IPv4 block that was going to be transferred by the owning
3) The transfer to the C.I.P. did not result in further deaggregation of
an IPv4 block - in short, the block is small enough that there is
reasonable expectation that the C.I.P. will be able to fill it in the
future, or the C.I.P. supplies a signed contract by another, larger,
network that guarentees the larger network will indeed use the empty part of
the block and continue to allow the C.I.P. to use their part - and
CONTINUE TO ADVERTISE IT AS A SINGLE BLOCK IN THE DFZ.
I totally understand the annoyance that a CIP might have a /24 smack dab
in the middle of a /8 and the owning org of the /8 decides to either
return the block, or sell it as part of an acquisition of a network, etc.
and the CIP wants to throw a monkey wrench into the sale. Of course, that
should not be permitted.
But what about the situation where, for example, Cable & Wireless pulled
out of the NA market? C&W had it's large allocations, sure. But they also
had a number of smaller fragments, /24, /23, /22 allocations and such that
they had obtained directly, before the minimum assignment size was added
the NRPM. These had been assigned to smaller customers of theirs, some of
When C&W pulled out, most of it's numbering went directly back to ARIN,
some was sold to other ISP's who gobbled up the usable C&W holdings.
If for example a CIP had a /23 that was part of a /22 that C&W owned, then
why inconvenience them by letting C&W sell the /22 as part of it's
dissolution? The fact of the matter was that C&W cancelled a great number
of it's NA contracts anyhow because they hadn't found a buyer for them,
so everyone in the other half of the /22 from the CIP would likely have
quit service anyway. Is it really necessary to force the CIP to renumber
just to make things slightly easier on C&W's bean-counters who oversaw
the dissolution of their NA holdings?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:58 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage
> Transfer Policy forIPv4 Address
> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance
> with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the proposal is
> being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).
> This proposal is in the first stage of the ARIN Policy
> Development Process. ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and
> Understanding step.
> Staff does not evaluate the proposal itself at this time,
> their only aim is to make sure that they understand the
> proposal and believe that the community will as well. Staff
> will report the results of this step to the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) within 10 days.
> The AC will review this proposal at their next regularly
> scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may
> be extended to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting).
> The AC will decide how to utilize the proposal. The decision
> will be announced to the PPML.
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this
> proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or
> non-support and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such
> participation contributes to a thorough vetting and provides
> important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> ## * ##
> Policy Proposal Name: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for
> IPv4 Address
> Proposal Originator : Christopher A Quesada,
> Proposal Version: 1
> Date: 2/9/2009
> Proposal type: New
> Policy term: permanent
> 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.
> Protection of critical infrastructure as defined in ARIN's
> Number Resource Policy Manual is necessary in order to ensure
> the continuous operation of the Internet for its global
> service community. It is possible for an organization to
> transfer an aggregate IPv4 address resource containing
> allocations/assignments downstream supporting critical
> infrastructure. This policy is intended to protect critical
> infrastructure by not allowing the transfer of those
> assignments if such transfer would interfere with the
> continuous and seamless operation of that critical
> infrastructure or hardship to the provider.
> Timetable for implementation: immediately
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML