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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 28, 2011, at 1:20 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On May 28, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 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).
> 
> Acknowledged. 
> 
> The exact match constraint will obviously make finding acceptable address 
> space much more difficult, due to the need to find not just any available 
> space up to the documented need, but instead require finding a party which 
> has the exact amount of space available and as a contiguous block.
> 

Exact amount or more, technically. Strangely enough, the community
came to consensus around the idea of allowing someone to sell off
pieces of their netblock without limitations on the fragmentation, but,
each recipient is supposed to only get a single chunk.

>>> 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?
> 
> As the general principles in 4.1.8 may easily be read to allow a party to 
> request a transfer of a smaller block due to availability, and your intent
> is clearly to disallow such, it might be best to clarify that point when 
> changing the syntax to require transfers in the exact amount the documented 
> need of the recipient.
> 
I'd appreciate it if staff can provide words that would do that. It is my
reading of the language in 153 that it says exactly that. Since it sounds
like staff has a different reading, I think I have made the intent clear
and will instead request that staff provide language that will have
the desired effect.


Owen

> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN