[arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

[Hadenfeldt, Andrew]

I support the proposal as written.

To Jason’s question: My opinion is it has limited usefulness today—I certainly don’t have a /19 sitting idle to assign to anyone. I prefer the proposal as written, however, I would not oppose making the check optional.

-Andy Hadenfeldt

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:23 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

The point of this provision was to ensure an ISP didn't re-allocate (or reassign)
a large block of IPs to a down stream customer, and then find when they tried
to get additional IP space that the large re-allocations (reassignment) was considered
underutilized and prevents them for getting additional IP space.

This then places the ISP in the difficult position of clawing back the resource, and
likely aslo requires them to provide IP space for numbering into.

I don't oppose the policy as written.

But I would like to ask the ISPs if there is any benifit in keeping the provision
as an optional check instead of its complete removal.

Baased on the response I will happily support as written, or support
making the check optional at the descresion of the resource holder.


__Jason


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:21 PM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote:
Hi John,

I support this.
I am all for streamlining the NRPM by removing artifacts from the free pool era.

Regards,
Mike


From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of John Springer
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:07 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

This draft policy seems straightforward and non-controversial. IMO, it is technically sound and promotes fair and impartial number policy. It has had support in the community.

It is my intention to move to advance it to Recommended Draft Policy status at our next teleconference.

Now would be a good time for further expressions of support. Statements of non-support are also solicited, if any.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_13.html

John Springer

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.



--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>|571-266-0006

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180312/a9db3c8f/attachment.htm>