[arin-ppml] Statistics regarding NRPM 8.3 Transfers to date

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:25 AM, McTim wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 1:05 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IIRC, allocations and assignments are rarely (if ever) made for the
>>> "exact amount of resources" recipients can justify.  There is usually
>>> some rounding (up).
>> There is no requirement for allocations and assignments to be
>> "a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under
>> current ARIN policies."
>> 
>> As there is for 8.3 transfers. However, we expect the applicant
>> normally applies for the maximum
>> ARIN policies will allow them to justify;   which is the minimum (and
>> maximum) size they
>> may receive by 8.3 transfer and must be received as a single aggregate block.
>> 
>> If a transfer recipient "receives multiple CIDR blocks"
>> or  "multiple transferred ranges of addresses" that's not receiving a
>> single aggregate,
>> and would mean fundamental requirements of 8.3 were completely disregarded.
> 
> If I need exactly 240 IP addresses, and can justify the same then I
> can reasonably expect to get a /24 either via transfer or assignment,
> no?  If I can only justify 240, then I will NEVER be able to get
> addresses via the STLS, as that is not a single aggregate.
> 
> I think we need to give staff some flexibility to allow them to do
> their job within the spirit of the policies.
> 
The /24 is within the intent of the policy as you stated above.

Let's look at another scenario that is what people are actually
intending to object to...

Let's say you can justify 980 addresses. The intent of the policy
would be for you to get a /22. The thing people are upset about
is that when you justify that /22, ARIN staff is apparently willing
to satisfy that need by allowing you to acquire through the transfer
policy a /23 and two disparate /24s.

The intent of the policy was that you could receive a /22. No more
or no less. That is considered the exact amount justified as a
single aggregate.

The problem is that staff is interpreting the exact phraseology
in the policy to mean that you have to justify it as a single aggregate,
but, you don't have to receive it as a single aggregate.


Owen