[arin-ppml] re-org question

[Scott Leibrand]

Fair enough.

If the 2010-6 language were removed, would that change your approach?  Or
is signing the RSA the main stumbling block for you?

-Scott

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:36 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Scott Leibrand <scott at dlvr.com> wrote:
> > The intent of this policy text was that an organization receiving a
> sparsely
> > used /16 would transfer the unused bits to other organization(s) that
> could
> > use them.
>
> For those who've not dug deep, Scott was the author of PP105 which
> became draft 2010-6. This was the draft policy which first introduced
> the language to the NRPM. He is thus uniquely well qualified to
> explain its intent.
>
>
> >  In your case, if you transferred all the /24s that are currently
> > unused (without any renumbering), would the blocks you're keeping meet a
> 50%
> > utilization threshold, if you include planned 24 month growth?
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> In my case the question is moot. I'd advise my client to update POCs
> at ARIN and place a carefully crafted contract effecting transfer of
> control into a locked safe. I can't think of a single sane reason I'd
> advise them to consider renumbering, changing BGP advertisements,
> dealing with IP brokers, evaluating the ARIN RSA contract, etc. in the
> midst of an already complicated re-organization.
>
> The policies structured as they are, I'd have to be out of my mind to
> actually tell ARIN the addresses had been transferred to a new
> organization.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20161109/0dcc3481/attachment.htm>