[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

[Aaron Dudek]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 00:09, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Aaron Dudek wrote:
>
>> Currently the only way to transfer owner ship is through 8.2 Mergers
>> and Acquisitions.
>> Company A received an initial allocation. Company B received a
>> significant allocation from Company A.
>>
>
>
>> Company A goes out of business. There is no method for company B to
>> take over the block from company A.
>
> If company B has a large enough need to meet the criteria for a direct
> assignment (I doubt they received an allocation as you describe),
> then, why didn't they go to ARIN instead of Company A?
>
> If they didn't meet and/or don't meet the criteria, then, why should they
> be able to transfer a smaller netblock rather than renumber as an end-run
> on policy?

Why are you assuming that they would get a smaller netblock? Why is
that a bad thing?
Renumbering is not easy even with ipv6.
Why are you assuming that they may not be able to meet the criteria
now? How is this an
end-run on polcy when they still have to meet the ARIN guidelines?



>
> I don't think that B's poor planning is something we should codify in
> ARIN policy.
>

Polices change over time. What may have be forbidden before may now be
allowed. There once
was a time that end-users where not allowed to get IPv6 space and had
to get it from the LIRs.
That is not poor planning, just following policy has policy dictated
at the time.

The policy doesn't allow for clean ups of ipv6 whois allocations
outside of mergers and acquisitions.
There have been requests to do so, but since they are outside of 8.2,
8.3 doesn't allow for it.

>> Company A has to migrate to a larger block. There is no method for
>> company B to take over the block from company A.
>>
>
> Right. I think this falls into the same answers as above.
>
>> These are just a couple of examples.
>> ARIN still has the final say of any transfers as per the rest of 8.3
>> as the "new owner" has to show need and justification just as before.
>>
>
> ARIN policy has the final say. ARIN's ability to say no is limited to exactly
> those things proscribed by policy, not even the ones obviously intended
> to be proscribed by policy as recent experience has shown.
>
> Owen
>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:14, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 26, 2011, at 12:45 PM, Aaron Dudek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since we are discussing 8.3.
>>>> I feel that there should be language to allow for transfers of IPv6.
>>>> Currently there is no language to allow for transfers of IPv6 allocations.
>>>> So essentially
>>>>
>>>
>>> IMHO, there should not. The need to facilitate directed transfers
>>> in IPv4 is strictly a result of the intersection of legacy addresses and
>>> failure to have a strong mechanism for address policy with legacy
>>> resources combined with the shortage of addresses.
>>>
>>> Neither of these factors applies to IPv6 and such transfers have no
>>> positive effect.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>>>
>>>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4  and IPv6 number resources
>>>> within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource
>>>> holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified
>>>> organizational recipient.......
>>>>
>>>> The other option would to remove the version number and just leave IP number
>>>> resources....
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Dudek
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 01:34, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 25, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It doesn't surprise me to see that we will disagree on this.
>>>>>>>> Since you are opposed to needs-basis in general, I don't expect you to
>>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>>> the need to preserve it here or to agree with it.
>>>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>>> On May 25, 2011, at 9:21 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, I don't expect you to entertain any logic that free markets
>>>>>>> are beneficial. I suspect spending a lot of time in the Bay Area has
>>>>>>> that effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there are places where regulated free markets can be beneficial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can point to a single historical example of an unregulated free
>>>>>> market that
>>>>>> remained beneficial and unregulated for more than 5 years, I'll be
>>>>>> surprised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Owen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PPML
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> 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:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>>
>
>