[arin-ppml] Policy Question(s)

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Oct 5 09:34:56 EDT 2010


It sounds like you've got a fairly good handle on the policy.  As I think
you mentioned, the operative policy is in section 8:

8.2 covers transfers due to Mergers and Acquisitions, which is traditionally
the policy applied to situations like this.  It requires that "the new
entity has acquired assets that used the transferred resources from the
current registrant", and that the addresses remain justified under current
ARIN policy.

It's also possible to transfer IPv4 addresses using 8.3, which doesn't
require M&A, but must be "received under RSA by organizations that are
within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a
single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current
ARIN policies."

If you have information to indicate that company C does not have justified
need for the /18 under current policy (and/or didn't at the time they became
the registrant in ARIN's database), please do provide your information to
ARIN (https://www.arin.net/resources/fraud/) so they can investigate.  The
information they received at the time of the transfer is confidential, but
they can take your tip, investigate, and institute a section 12 Resource
Review (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#twelve) if justified.

It might also be worth noting that there is a policy proposal on the docket
this week in Atlanta to require ARIN to institute resource reviews under
various circumstances, including "Upon receipt by ARIN of one or more
credible reports of fraud":
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_11.html  If you have an opinion
on whether that would be good policy, I would encourage you to participate
in the meeting discussion, either in person or remotely:


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Ronald F. Guilmette
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 5:23 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Question(s)

In message
<0F29D1BA57992E4CAB5AD2C9AE7B42393777FABA at EMV01-UKBR.domain1.systemh
ost.net>, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

>> >    Ronald> Would it ever have been permissible for Company B to sell,
>> >    Ronald> to ``gift'', or to in any other way transfer, just late
>> last
>> >    Ronald> year, its /18 to this brand new LLC, Company C?
>Companies often divest part of their operations to another company.
>Sometimes they just sell network assets which would include a functioning
>network and its IP addresses and customers.

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear.  I left out some important details.

As far as I can tell there was no transfer of customers, nor of any
hardware, not of any ``hosts''.  Just the IP space.

Now, is _this_ scenario considered usual & customary?

Is it considered acceptable, under current policy?

>The receiving company generally has its own network and integrates the
>two networks, reusing the old addresses on the integrated network before
>decommissioning the purchased one.

Again, I may not have been clear.  The ``receiving'' company (C) in this
was only born in October of last year.  It had no network of its own prior
to that, nor any customers, prior to that, nor any IP addresses, prior to
As far as I can tell, all it ever has had was the /18 it was given (as a
birthday gift?) by Company B.

So now, as I have clarified it, is _this_ scenario considered usual &

Is it considered acceptable, under current policy?

>Truth is stranger than fiction which means that a lot of oddities are
>perfectly normal.

Yes, however this one is looking like a Greek god...

  ``Athena leaped from Zeus's head, fully grown and armed -- with a

Company C only came into being in October of last year, and yet
It seems to have been born fully formed, like Athena, with its own /18
it would seem, may never have been justified or audited in any way, despite
its being non-legacy space).

(Remember, this is _not_ ``legacy'' space we are talking about.  The /18 in
question was first allocated... presumaby by ARIN, under an RSA... in July,

So my question remains... if _someone_ creates a brand new, fresh, newly
manufactured LLC, can some other company that happens to have an unused
/18 lying around just ``gift'' that /18 to this new legal entity the
very next day?

And if that does happen, shouldn't ARIN balk at putting the new entity's
name into the WHOIS record as the new legal ``owner'' of the block?
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 mailing list