[arin-ppml] ASN transfers...
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
>> 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