[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri May 27 11:13:21 EDT 2011

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> It's still not clear to me.
> Referencing "values" of an RFC is not terribly clarifying when attempting to
> match transfer needs requirements which already are out of sync with
> RFC2050's 1 year window.

Especially an RFC that was written in 1996. In fact, it acknowledges
this quite clearly:

"   It is in the interest of the Internet community as a whole that the
   above goals be pursued.  However it should be noted that
   "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting goals.  All
   the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the interests of
   individual end-users or Internet service providers.  Careful analysis
   and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
   appropriate compromise."

The "values of 2050" is a dead issue IMHO. The idea of inter-RIR
transfer should go back to the drawing board entirely. Both interest
and opinion have grown significantly and the path that this proposal
is taking does not reflect that. Trying to adjust it midstream to rush
something in is a grave error all considered.

I'm not in favor of this approach, or any approach that has presented to date.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list