[arin-ppml] ASN transfers...

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 20 15:09:02 EDT 2011

On Sep 20, 2011, at 7:55 AM, David Williamson wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:20PM +0200, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> There are legacy ASN's. There is policy to transfer legacy resources
>> "assets". The language in 8.x doesn't discern between IP addresses or
>> ASN''s.
>> Why not?
> That's obvious, is it not?  :-)  Clearly an oversight, given the
> fixation on legacy addresses.  Perhaps 8.x needs a glossary/preamble
> with some definitions.  The intent of that section is clear, even if
> the language is a bit vague in defining "legacy resources".  I just
> don't see why someone would want to transfer an ASN outside of normal
> business transactions.  Perhaps due to some misplaced sense of
> importance around a lower number?  In any case, this feels like a minor
> issue.  A brief editorial proposal could resolve it, and would seem
> likely to get a lot of support.

No, it was not an oversight. At least as I understood it at the time
we were developing the policy, we sought to do the following:

	1.	Once resources were transferred, they were no longer

	2.	Make no distinction between legacy and non-legacy
		addresses in terms of policy application at time of transfer.

	3.	Allow M&A based transfers of all resources (status quo).

	4.	Add the ability to transfer IPv4 resources as a special
		circumstance with an expiration clause. The expiration
		clause was deleted during the unusual path to adoption
		that this policy followed.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list