[arin-ppml] On IPv4 free pool runout and transfer policy requirements for the ARIN region

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 17:15:30 EDT 2015

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> On 6/5/2015 9:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Roger. Then I'd also add:
>> Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a
>> registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer
>> addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through
>> second-order activity too. E.g. I would disallow ARIN->APNIC absent a
>> commitment from APNIC to disallow a subsequent APNIC->CNNIC activity
>> due to CNNIC disallowing all out-transfers.
> Why?
> Why would this be any different than allowing a transfer to XYZ corp who
> never intends to sell them again ever no matter what happens?

Agreed, there is substantial benefit in allowing inbound transfers to CNNIC
for many including that the addresses are going to be legitimately used.
Reciprocity is an issue for APNIC only, not ARIN.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150605/3aa2f1d5/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list