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

[John Curran]

On May 27, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On May 27, 2011, at 4:25 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> 
>> 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?

We need to understand how you wish ARIN to interpret *exact amount*
in the proposal language with respect to receipt of smaller blocks 
than actual need:

"Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA as 
 a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under 
 current ARIN policies by organizations that are within the ARIN region."

Under the current NRPM 8.3 language, the resources transferred in total 
must match in exact amount the documented need. Generally, it is not hard 
for a party to show documented need for less space if the space available
is less than desired. In such cases, if they are able to rather quickly 
utilize the received block, it may also be possible (depending on the policy 
used and their total resource utilization) that they could then apply for 
a subsequent transfer (per 4.1.8 no sooner than 3 months later, unless they 
can explain why their need has changed in an unforeseen manner)

Under the ARIN-prop-153 proposed text, the same conditions apply but it is 
now much more likely to have transfer requests which do not match the exact 
amount due to the single aggregate phrase.

To answer your question we would first need to know how to handle the
transfer of a smaller block than the party actually qualifies for, and
whether it is as a circumvention of policy.  For example: a party (X),
needing a /15 for 12 months growth, will get told by ARIN that they
will actually only receive a /17 (because we're only providing space 
to meet 3 months of need).  If X instead opts to get space from party 
(Y), who is is willing to transfer their /16 to X, does ARIN approve 
the transfer fully knowing that it is not an exact match but is actually 
less then X's documented need?  Or do we tell X that they need to find
a willing party Z who has two contiguous /16's available in order to 
meet X's *exact* need?

If we do approve the /16 transfer to X, then a subsequent request for 
a transfer to meet their residual need is both quite likely and would 
not be circumvention of policy.  If we reject the transfer due to being
smaller than the documented need, then the "end-run" described above
cannot occur.

Which interpretation best matches your policy intent?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN