[arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[John Curran]

On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
 wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>  The ISP must demonstrate the need for IPv4 address resources under
>>  ARIN standard allocation policies (i.e. a single-homed ISP showing
>>  need for a /20 or multi-homed ISP showing need for a /22) in order
>>  to qualify to receive resources via transfer.  Once qualified, we
>>  can approve the transfer of IPv4 space; this can be to a maximum
>>  of their documented need based on their current utilization rate
>>  extended 24 months out, and down to a minimum of a single /24 (as
>>  /24 is the explicit minimum transfer size specified in NRPM 8.3)
> 
> Thanks John.
> 
> So, what would folks think of a policy adjustment along these lines:
> 
> "Add to: 8.3 Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
> 
> * Minimum address block size qualifications defined in section 4 do
> not apply to transfers to specified recipients."

Bill - 
 
  You are suggesting a policy change, but I'm unsure what you are 
  trying to accomplish in terms of a goal (and hence the text you 
  suggest may not be the most logical place to accomplish it.)

  The anchor in NRPM 8.3 is the following text:  "The recipient must
  demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address 
  resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."

  I would generally recommend against putting a reference requiring
  compliance to "need... under current ARIN policies" and then cutting
  particular pieces of those policies out in subsequent statements 
  Note - we'll implement whatever is adopted, but doing so as you 
  suggest has a high risk of multiple interpretations and/or member
  confusion when the try to decode the result.

  If the intent is that their maximum transfer brings their total IPv4 
  holdings which meets their anticipated needs for IPv4 address space 
  for 24 months, then you might want to drop the current reference to 
  the allocation policy and simply state the intended maximum in plain 
  language.

  I do not know if I've addressed your question, and will note that
  the elected ARIN AC excels at doing this sort of language (if you
  want to submit a problem statement to the ARIN AC and work with 
  them on it...)

I hope this helps answer your question!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN