[arin-ppml] An article of interest to the community....

[Mike Burns]

>> From Prop-151:
>
> The recipient entity must be a current ARIN account holder.
>
>  - The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN.
>
>  - The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject
>    to current ARIN policies. In particular, in any subsequent ARIN
>    IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required
>    to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 address
>    space held, including all transferred resources.
>
>  - If the recipient has already received the equivalent of a /12
>    of addresses in the prior 12 months, the recipient must
>    demonstrate the need for additional resources in the exact amount
>    which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>
>
>
> For some people who crave more regulation, I suppose fewer regulations is 
> equal to abandoning all regulation.
>

If they are required to account for the efficient utilization of all IPv4 
address space held, including all transferred resources, then, what is the 
point of removing the needs basis from the transfer? Why let them transfer 
it only to have it revoked later if they can't account for efficient 
utilization?

Owen

Hi Owen,

The idea is that if you have purchased IP addresses through 8.3 that if you 
then go to ARIN for an allocation *from the free pool* that ARIN can use 
their existing allocation policies.
I have always seen a difference between free pool addresses and transferred 
addresses. I think proper stewardship of free pool addresses requires the 
kinds of justifications already present in policy.

So what I wanted was to protect the free pool addresses by ensuring ARIN 
could take into account all the addresses the entity owns. In other words if 
they go back to ARIN for more addresses, ARIN can ask them to first utilize 
the addresses they purchased in the transfer market. If they have utilized 
them to the normal amounts, ARIN can give them addresses from the free pool.

Anyway that was my intention and if it wasn't clear, that's an example of 
the continued work on the text of the proposal which the AC is suggesting, I 
suppose.
And I welcome any input on making that clearer.

I don't think there will be that much action on the transfer market until 
the free pool depletes, and not too much overlap where companies will engage 
BOTH in the transfer market and in free pool allocations.


Regards,
Mike