[arin-ppml] NRPM Policies 4.6 and 4.7 Suspended by ARIN Board

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Jan 23 04:17:41 EST 2014


On 21-Jan-14 21:38, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net
> <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:>
>> 2) The issue is that theoretically any organization with multiple
>> blocks could come in and ask for a single block as large as the sum
>> of all the previously issue blocks. At this time, given the space
>> that has been issued to date, such a request could be larger than
>> the entire remaining IPv4 free pool in the worst case, and while we
>> would theoretically get back the existing blocks as they renumber
>> out of them, that could be a lengthy process (and would ikely still
>> be significantly smaller than what we issued them)>
>
> Ok... that makes sense, thank you.
>
> I would expect ARIN to refuse the transaction in that case. 4.6.1
> does say rather clearly about aggregation and returns :
> "Transactions should only be accepted under this policy if they are
> in the interests of the community"

Note that, from what I've been told, ARIN staff policy is to approve ALL
requests unless there is a specific section of the NPRM that clearly
says they can't.  They do not feel they have the discretion to deny a
request simply because granting it would be a Bad Idea(tm).

> Clearly any transaction that could be at any risk of impairing ARIN's
> ability to allocate addresses in the near future, would not be in the
> interests of the community. ARIN should choose to decline in that
> case, or continue to work with the holder of address resources, to
> select an alternative not requiring ARIN allocate to large of a
> block.

Given the above, the Board should evaluate whether it is necessary to
suspend this (or any other) policy in advance of problematic
applications because by the time such makes its way to Staff, it is too
late for us to do anything about it.  The Board cannot rule on
individual applications (e.g. via appeal, as often proposed) due to
potential conflicts of interest.

> If the blocks are already short prefixes, or will be too short a
> prefix, then the aggregation benefit can be outweighed..

IMHO, such a judgment call is best performed by the community by
revising the policy after we have been advised (as in this case) that
the existing policy text is inadequate.  IMHO, it is not in the
community's interests for Staff to be making such decisions of their own
discretion (unless we have explicitly said so, as in Section 12), nor do
we want to put Staff in the position of having to defend such when
challenged.  We owe them clear guidelines that they can implement
impartially, and a Board suspension of policy implies that we (the
community) have failed on that account.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140123/4436fb2e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2381 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140123/4436fb2e/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list