[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 20:28:54 EDT 2014
Ok, I think I understand what you're concerned about. But I think that's a
different issue, which isn't caused by a conflict with the NRPM, but rather
is caused by ARIN's operational practice (correct me if I'm wrong, John) of
requiring 50% utilization of acquired space to complete an 8.2 transfer.
Maybe it would be useful if ARIN staff could detail what the operational
practice is in the case of an 8.2 transfer request of dramatically
I agree with you (and the intent of this proposal is) that it'd be best for
ARIN to complete the 8.2 transfer, and then (as this policy states) work
with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer whatever portions of the
transferred space are unused. Obviously the degree to which the acquirer
could do that would be determined by just how fragmented the space is. If
it's so fragmented that it's not worth renumbering out of or 8.3
transferring any of the space, then I think the proper thing to do is to
instruct the acquiring company that any future growth needs to use the
unused fragments, and that they will not qualify to receive any new space
until they've done so.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> On 7/23/2014 3:00 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
>> > On 7/23/14, 10:27 , ARIN wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9
>> >> Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
>> >> Date: 23 July 2014
>> >> AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
>> >> Resource Policy:
>> >> "This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource
>> >> by eliminating conflicting language in the NRPM with the RSA. This
>> >> proposal is technically sound. The NRPM should not contain language
>> >> conflicts with the RSA. This proposal is supported by the community.
>> >> This proposal reflects current practice."
>> >> Problem Statement:
>> >> 8.2 transfer policy has utilization requirements at the time of the
>> >> review of the transfer request.
>> >> The RSA section 6 expressly forbids ARIN from de-registering blocks (in
>> >> whole or in part) due to under-utilization or no-justification during
>> >> transfer requests.
>> >> This is a direct conflict.
>> >> Policy statement:
>> >> Remove the words "aggregate" and "reclaim" from 8.2, so it reads:
>> >> "In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are
>> >> longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of
>> >> transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work
>> >> with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer resources as needed
>> >> restore compliance via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy."
>> I do not support this draft policy as written.
>> This current draft does not do anything substantive to fix the conflict
>> in the NRPM which exists because the RSA contractually obligates ARIN
>> not to reclaim address space for underutilization.
> You are correct that the RSA contractually obligates ARIN not to reclaim
> address space. That is why ARIN-2014-9 removes that word ("reclaim").
> Given that, I'm not sure why you say that this "doesn't do anything
> substantive to fix the conflict".
> ARIN today can't reclaim the space nor force an organization it to
> aggregate because of the RSA terms, so those two words being in the NRPM
> don't do anything. So removing them doesn't do anything either, in my
> opinion. The real issue is in the utilization requirement on 8.2 transfers.
>> The current 8.2
>> policy and this proposed draft change will still result in orphan blocks
>> with incorrect stale registry information even when legitimate network
>> mergers and acquisitions occur.
> Why do you say that? Do you feel that when organizations acquire space
> via M&A, they will be afraid of ARIN working with them to voluntarily
> return or transfer unneeded resources, and will instead fail to tell ARIN
> about the transaction? I understand that fear based on the current
> language (which threatens reclamation), but I'm having trouble
> understanding how that would remain a concern once all ARIN is directed to
> do is work with the resource holder to do something voluntary.
> Org A purchases Org B (and its network). Org A asks ARIN to update Org
> B's records to show that Org A now owns Org B. Org B's address space is
> vastly underutilized and Org A+B's combined growth doesn't meet current
> policy utilization requirements for Org B's netblocks. The current 8.2
> policy prevents ARIN from updating Org B's netblocks to show that Org A now
> is the legitimate rights holder for Org B's netblocks because it doesn't
> meet the utilization requirements in 8.2. Org A estimates it would take $x
> million dollars to migrate all the services currently scattered in Org B's
> netblocks into other blocks so that some blocks could be transferred or
> returned. Org A gives up on the 8.2 transfer request, and thus we end up
> with Org B's records being orphaned with incorrect registration
> information. Someone from Org A continues to pay the maintenance or
> membership fees for Org B (if its not legacy non-LRSA) and the registry
> records continue to _not_ show Org A as the legitimate rights holder for
> Org B's netblocks.
>> The RSA is the controlling document between an organization and ARIN,
>> and the NRPM should not have policy which directly contradicts the
>> contractual limitations or obligations of the RSA.
> I do not see how the remaining language ("In the event that number
> resources of the combined organizations are no longer justified under ARIN
> policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the transaction, through a
> transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work with the resource holder(s)
> to return or transfer resources as needed to restore compliance via the
> processes outlined in current ARIN policy.") directly (or indirectly)
> contradicts the contractual limitations or obligations of the RSA. Perhaps
> you could provide more details on why you think it does?
> If an organization voluntarily wants to return or transfer address space
> that is fine. However, if the blocks aren't utilized to today's
> utilization policies, an org may choose not to update their records because
> that is easier and in their best interest. I postulate that it is better
> to let legitimate M&A activities show the actual rights older of the
> address blocks, rather than previous holders even if that allows transfers
> to occur for underutilized netblocks. The hypothetical above shows how an
> organization even with the best intentions to keep their registry data
> up-to-date will make a business decision to just continue like the transfer
> never occurred from a registry data perspective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML