[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-173 Revisions to M&A TransferRequirements(Updated Version)

[Michael Sinatra]

On 07/05/12 13:31, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:

> At present, I don't think they will come forward, and risk being told to
> aggregate internally generating tons of engineering and operational
> work, and thus, the ARIN database would remain out of date.

To the extent that this proposal exempts M&A transfers from any 
renumbering requirement (or even encouragement), it introduces a 
double-standard into the NRPM.  As an example, section 4.3.6.2 requires 
small multihomers (I love that word!) to renumber upon getting 
additional assignments.  Note the opposition on this mailing list to 
proposal 167, which would have mitigated that requirement.  While not 
expressing an opinion as to who should "have to" renumber, I do not 
think the NRPM should have the effect, intended or otherwise, of placing 
greater renumbering onus on small entities versus large ones.  If we're 
concerned about routing table bloat from the mom-and-pops, then we 
should be concerned about it from M&A transfers, regardless of the size 
of the merger or acquisition.  Likewise, if it was "too hard" for a 
Nortel to consider renumbering, why is it so much easier for a 
mom-and-pop to renumber?  Mom-and-pops don't have to renumber as much, 
but they don't have the same resources at their disposal to throw at the 
renumbering task.

michael