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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 28, 2011, at 7:47 AM, John Curran wrote:

> 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?
> 

The intent of the policy would be that ARIN would decline the particular
transfer due to mismatch and could reiterate the need to find a /15
or blocks which can be assembled into a /15 (contiguous bit-aligned
/16s would qualify, disjoint or non-bit-aligned /16s would not, but
8 contiguous bit-aligned /18s would also qualify, for example).

> 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?
> 

Rejecting the transfer and, as I expected, said end-run would be blocked
by ARIN. Would the language in 153 as written be interpreted to
mean that the transfer would be rejected, or, is there further clarification
of that needed?

Owen