[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call
owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 19:25:02 EDT 2011
I disagree entirely.
Transfers, if they are to be permitted, should be done with the recipient required to meet
exactly the same justifications as those under section 4.
I see the 3-month timeframe as a temporary abomination to section 4, necessary because
of special circumstances of runout.
Throwing out the rest of section 4 because of it is absurd.
On May 2, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Agree. Yet again we have a problem where the needs justification for using the very last of ARIN's free pool should be totally different than the needs justification for being the recipient of an expensive resource transfer via specified transfer, and yet it isn't.
> Can't fix the one without breaking the other in this case... or agreeing that needs justification for transfers needs fixing. (One of my proposals today that hasn't received comment yet covers the issue that new recipients can only get 3 months via specified transfer, given the current text, for instance.)
> I have that one on my list to respond to. IMO we should be moving away from having 8.3 requirements depend on section 4 requirements, and instead move toward copying the necessary requirements to section 8, which whatever modifications (like 24 months) are more appropriate for transfers. But that is a bit of a project, which I don't have time for just yet. :-)
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML