[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3

Blake Dunlap ikiris at gmail.com
Fri May 27 20:14:37 EDT 2011


On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 18:09, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 27, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> >
> > On May 27, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Also, I have noted in that proposal that the single-aggregate transfer
requirement as it would apply with this proposal in effect can be trivially
worked around simply by submitting a large number of individual transfers,
each of which comes with justification. This just increases the amount of
paperwork for both parties *and* ARIN with no other benefit.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you have said, however, the reality is that the language in 8.3 was
put there by the AC for a reason
> >> and with an intent which was supported by the consensus of the
community.
> >>
> >> You prefer to abandon that intent based on the interpretation of the
language. I prefer to correct the
> >> language so that it matches the original intent.
> >
> > I think experience shows that the current interpretation of the language
reduces cost for everyone involved, and that restoring the "original intent"
changes absolutely nothing... in other words, transfers of 660,000 addresses
from multiple blocks will still occur between a pair of entities, only this
time it'll be a whole raft of need justification and transfer request forms
instead of just one.
> >
>
> I don't think experience shows anything of the sort. I think experience
shows that the current interpretation
> makes it easy to circumvent the intent. I don't think we have any
experience with what would happen
> with the language change.
>
> >>
> >> Subsequent transfers would be the result of subsequent needs,
presumably, so, I'm not seeing that
> >> this is necessarily in conflict.
> >
> > Sure, "subsequent" in that the next needs justification was submitted 30
seconds after the previous one.
> >
>
> Given the time ARIN takes to evaluate and turn around a request, I don't
think that's actually true. I also
> trust that staff would become suspicious and investigate such situations
appropriately as well.
>
> Owen

I would prefer to add a minimum blackout period, as opposed to relying on
the above, as we already have evidence of ARIN staff creatively interpreting
policy to facilitate transfers for requestors, to a much greater degree than
required to simply allow back to back to back transfers.

-Blake
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110527/b806d55e/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list