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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 5/28/2011 9:36 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> 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).

Lets assume that their need is so immediate that they can immediately 
use 80% of the first /16. Or immediately enough... they can simply write 
the purchase contract to allow the transfers to be spread out over just 
enough time to achieve this (even the Nortel-Microsoft deal is written 
with subsequent transfer language)

> 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.

Maybe this long, even so it doesn't matter (see above)

> 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.

Exactly. For all we know this has *already happened* for some huge 
amount of the address space, and we just haven't seen the transfers 
trickle through yet.

Of course if the seller doesn't really need the space, there's not much 
preventing the buyer from starting to use it before the transfers are 
approved... which just reduces the accuracy of the whois database.

>
> 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.

Right, which is unfair to a recipient who thinks they can only find /24s 
but then next week finds some /16s on the market that are what they 
really needed, only they took one of the /24s in desperation.

Matthew Kaufman