[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers
abagrin at mydigitalshield.com
Sat Jan 20 12:38:46 EST 2018
Justification seemed reasonably simple. If they are burdensome, we could
look at making justification easier.
I would vote for #1 but either is fine. I'm all for the prevention of IP
On Jan 20, 2018 12:17 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
I think the burden is the potential to have to rejustify an ISP's initial
allocation when being fulfilled by transfer. The
inconsistency seems inefficient and creates confusion; there appears to be
support for eliminating the inconsistency. With slightly more support for
changing section 8 to be consistent with section 4, rather than the other
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Quoting myself:
> If there are organizations transferring blocks larger than a /24 for
> whom officer-attested justification is burdensome (to them or to ARIN) I’d
> like to understand what is burdensome, so we can figure out how to reduce
> that burden. If not, then implementing section 8 as written seems
> appropriate until we identify a reason to change it.
> Do you know of any organizations transferring blocks larger than a /24
> for whom officer-attested justification is burdensome (to them or to ARIN)?
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML