[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
owen at delong.com
Mon May 30 12:28:11 EDT 2011
If they can find two /15s that started out as /15s, then there's no problem. The issue comes if they, for example,
find someone with a /8 and want to get two disparate /15s from within that /8. The intent here is to require
the /8 holder to renumber enough to make a contiguous /14 available rather than transferring two disparate
/15s and disaggregating them.
On May 29, 2011, at 9:34 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I’m confused. If an organization can demonstrate need for a /14 and they can only find a /15 in the market today, why should they have to wait a whole year if they can find another /15 just a few months later? Why should we penalize them for the fact that the supply at the time of need is low? Is it because you want someone else with demonstrable need to get that second /15? If that’s the case, won’t that be based on who’s willing to pay top dollar for that /15?
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 10:46 PM
> To: Brett Frankenberger
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
> What I would think makes more sense as policy would be:
> Organizations may transfer multiple address blocks but
> no organization shall receive more than one address block
> per year where said address block is smaller
> than its original registered size.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML