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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On May 28, 2011, at 2:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On May 27, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 28, 2011, at 1:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> What's "suspicious" about it? I tell ARIN "look, I need 660,000 addresses... I found someone with that many, but they're in a bunch of different blocks. Over the next few hours you'll be getting a bunch of transfer request forms with associated justification"
>> 
>> "Here's my justification that I need 660,000 addresses... which of course also justifies the 65536 for this /16"
>> 
>> "Here's my justification that I still need over 594k addresses... which of course is sufficient to justify the 131072 for this /15"
>> 
>> "Here's my justification that I still need over 463k addresses... which of course is sufficient to justify the 512 for this /23"
>> 
> 
> ARIN would quickly identify this as an end-run on the policy and block it, I believe. John, care to comment?
> 

This isn't an "end run" around the policy change you've written. The recipient has a valid need for 660,000 addresses and they can be fulfilled by one or more transfers of blocks.

>> And so on and so on until they get down to the last block.
>> 
>> Nothing suspicious, nothing that violates the policy, just a big waste of time for all three parties involved.
>> 
> Actually it does. However, I'll be happy to correct the language to prevent such a workaround if you
> think it is necessary.

I don't think it is necessary at all. I think this change is a waste of time and that my change is more appropriate.

> 
> 
>> I think this is one case where the staff outsmarted the AC for a good reason.
>> 
> 
> We can agree to disagree.

Or not.

Matthew Kaufman