[arin-ppml] Team Review - policy matter? (was: Re: reverse COE statement)

Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 14:40:41 EDT 2014

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> I disagree. While it is not specifically called out, the simple fact is that 8.3 transfer policy specifically states that IPv4 transfers should be subject to the same policies as IPv4 free pool allocations. It does make an exception for the “speculation timeframe” allowed in the request, but otherwise I believe that the community’s expectation is that they are treated the same and subject to the same policies and limitations.
> How do other members of the community feel about this?

It would have been my expectation that all number assignments/allocations
(whether from free pool or transfer) would undergo the same review in the
same way in order to insure that policies in place are applied consistently
unless called out in policy that the practices should be different.

I am not totally convinced that extending the formal team review from
a /16 (or larger) to all sized requests is needed to achieve a consistent
(and fair) result(*), but if it is perceived to be needed, then that
team review should be (and should have been) applied across all needs
assessments.  It is acknowledged that the staffing issues for team
reviews remain.


(*) In hindsight, I think moving to something like a /22 or larger would
have been a better plan to balance staff resource needs while minimizing
any impacts of lack of consistency.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list