[arin-ppml] re-org question

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Nov 9 15:36:11 EST 2016

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

Bill Herrin

William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list