[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (fwd)

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Apr 30 18:19:24 EDT 2014


It'll be a massive abuse vector.

Best,

Martin

On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:

>
> I agree with Bill.  It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
> small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
> see a /16 as being small.  Something in the range of /24 to /20 would
> be better.
>
> Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
> we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations.  ARIN would
> simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
> or transfers, but if it was later discovered the recipient was acting in
> bad faith, the allocation could be revoked.
>
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer <springer at inlandnet.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
> > >
> > > Policy statement:
> > > Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of
> the
> > > transfer: from "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."
> > > to "For transfers larger than a /16 equivalent, 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."
> >
> > How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
> > helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
> > analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
> > transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
> >
> > What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this
> > idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request
> > accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new
> > no-justification regime?
> >
> > For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> > --
> > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com <javascript:;>
> bill at herrin.us <javascript:;>
> > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any
> issues.
> >
> >
>
> --
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140430/5c15ae38/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list