[arin-ppml] 2600::/12 LOA
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Mar 31 16:59:30 EDT 2014
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:00 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> NRPM 11 was designed for parties requesting allocations from ARIN for
>>> research purposes; not ARIN checking the quality/integrity of new block
>>> received from IANA. Given the recent occurance, I believe it is prudent
>>> for ARIN to utilize NRPM 11 going forward for purposes of this quality
>>> checking, as it makes visible the organization doing the testing/making
>>> use of the space, including duration of the activity and research nature,
>>> as well as reaffirming the expected uniqueness requirement.
>> If I understand this correctly, Matthew suggested that an update to
>> Section 11 would be more useful? If that's the case I agree. It would
>> require a few, simple, modifications.
> I think his suggestion to make use of NRPM 11 for this purpose is quite
> excellent. It was not process that we used in the past, but shall be
> done that way going forward. To the extent that the community wishes
> to improve NRPM 11 policy text for this purpose of address space testing,
> that is also welcome.
>> Why would ARIN ever need to issue an LOA if whatever is distributed is
>> in the registry? All the LOA responsibilities if even needed at that
>> point would fall to the registrant.
> Agreed; that is the major benefit of taking an "NRPM 11" approach to address
> space testing - ARIN stays focused on being a registry and leaves the use of
> address space to registrants. Since registrants are unique for a given address
> block, we also preempt multiple parties with potentially conflict plans on the
> use (or routing) of any given portion of address space.
Yes, I agree. This is the preferable route.
More information about the ARIN-PPML