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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Sun May 29 17:43:11 EDT 2011

On May 29, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:

> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:39:23AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I actually do think that Bill's language might be closer to community intent.
>> I was trying to do the minimal surgical language change, but, I would like
>> to get feedback from the community as to which language they think is
>> preferable.
> So an organization with a largely unused legacy /8 would be limited to
> one transfer per year?  (Even though, after transferring one /16, they
> would be able to, for example, transfer another /16 (i.e. the /16
> adjacent to the one they first transferred) without causing any further
> deaggregation?)
No... They would not be limited. The limitation being expressed would
be on the recipients, not the supplier. So, for example, an organization
that needed a /14 and wanted to get it from the organization with a
largely unused legacy /8 would need to get a /14 from them, or take
4 years to transfer it in /16 sized chunks that were not contiguous. What
would not be allowed would be to satisfy their need for a /14 by carving
up the /18 into  4 separate /16 sized chunks (or an even larger number
of even smaller chunks).


>> On May 29, 2011, at 6:53 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> If you want to get close to the original intent, try something along
>>> the lines of, "Organizations may transfer multiple address blocks but
>>> no organization shall offer nor shall any organization receive more
>>> than one address block per year where said address block is smaller
>>> than its original registered size."
>     -- Brett

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list