[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

[John Curran]

On 30 Nov 2017, at 1:08 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net<mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>> wrote:


And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.

It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and hating section 3.6 of the NRPM.
Some years they see any attempt at housecleaning stale assignments that are just on autopilot
(like this mythical /16 - I love how when people cite these examples they never
state the actual numbers - hello!) as an obstacle to increased IPv6
adoption so they hate it and undercut it.   Other years they desperately
need to get some IPv4 for someone very big and powerful with maybe a
whole lot of guns and rocket launchers and such and they love this
section since it allows them to scrape together some IPv4 for a need.

<chuckle>

Ted -

    You’d be amazed, but ARIN staff actually doesn’t “feel” much about the
    various policy text contained in the NRPM… It is entirely the community’s
    collective work product, and the only time I hear staff express ‘grumbling'
    over policy text is when it is overly ambiguous regarding the intended policy.
    (To the extent that there are concerns on any aspects of the NRPM, we
    report such to the community in periodic Policy Experience and
    Implementation reports.)

    As usual, the key question is (and remains):  what the does the ARIN
    community feel is the desired policy for POC validation, both when
    initially set and with respect to any periodic update?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20171130/e90da3f8/attachment.htm>