[arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Apr 18 22:24:29 EDT 2017


+1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy intent as I understand it. 

Scott

> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
> 
> Best,
> 
> -M<
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <rbf+arin-ppml at panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> >>
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> >>
>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> >>
>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address holdings,
>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>> >>
>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> >> any 6 month period.
>> >
>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>> > policy.  "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>> > have assignments.  Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>> > assignments or vice versa).  Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar.  (Or "transferred,
>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>> >
>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>> >
>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>> >
>> >     — Brett
>> 
>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words “or assigned” added
>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this regard, it
>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the upcoming
>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170418/c0f7e4bd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list