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

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 01:25:20AM +0200, 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"

So they transfer the /16.
 
> "Here's my justification that I still need over 594k addresses...
> which of course is sufficient to justify the 131072 for this /15"

Except that need over the next 12 months is not the only criteria. 
Efficient utilization of all previous allocations is also a
requirement.

Assuming the /16 that they just got (with the first transfer) hasn't
yet been actually used, this transfer would be rejected under NRPM
4.2.4.1 (unless their need is so immediate that they are able to
immediately utilize 80% of that first /16).

If we assume their rate of usage is constant over the one year
justification period, then they need around one /16 per 1.2 months, so
we'd expect it to take about a month to utilize the the first /16 to
the 80% threshold and be eligible to request more space.

Of course, this might not be an issue.  The transfer agreement between
the two parties might specify payment for all 660K addresses up front,
and require the seller to then transfer them to the purchaser, one
aggregate at a time, as requested by the purchaser and approved by
ARIN.  So the receipient just uses one aggregate to the 80% level,
requests transfer of the next one, and so on.  So, there's not much of
a functional difference -- it's just that the unused portion of the
space remains registerd to the seller until the purchaser needs to
actually use it.  (The only risk would perhaps be related to section
12.  If all 660K addresses were immediately transferred, then any
resource review would be dependent on the recipient organizations need
(and presumably they'd have no trouble passing any such review, since
they had just justified the addresses); but if a large part of the
addresses remain with the seller for many months, then a resource
review would be based on the seller's need, which might not exist. 
Practically speaking, at least with current practice related to
resource reviews, there's not much risk, though.)

If "one aggregate" really is what we want, I don't see how to get there
except limiting recipients to one transfer per some period of time.

     -- Brett