<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 1, 2019, at 15:13 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Because of an off-list conversation I'd like to add I think the expectations of RFC2008 still exist in our policy manual today;</div><div dir="ltr" class=""> </div><div dir="ltr" class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px" class=""><div class="">4.2.1.1. Purpose</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="">ARIN</span> allocates blocks of IP addresses to ISPs for the purpose of reassigning and reallocating that space to <b class="">their customers.</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">4.2.3.3. Contiguous Blocks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">IP addresses are allocated to ISPs in contiguous blocks, which should remain intact. Fragmentation of blocks is discouraged. To avoid fragmentation, <b class="">ISPs are encouraged to require their customers to return address space if they change ISPs.</b> <b class="">Therefore, if a customer moves to another service provider or otherwise terminates a contract with an ISP, it is recommended that the customer return the network addresses to the ISP and renumber into the new provider’s address space.</b> The original ISP should allow sufficient time for the renumbering process to be completed before requiring the address space to be returned.</div></blockquote><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div></div></div></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Now ARIN's ability to enforce this is very limited, since ISPs can make reassignments entirely by their own policy without any <span class="gmail-il">ARIN</span> review against NRPM today, we even eliminated ARIN review of large reassignments. So, I'm not sure a policy change is actually required, as there is noting ARIN can do about address leases absent connectivity when they are made as reassignments.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Well, there is still section 12.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">However, I think clarifying that leases without connectivity are valid and are documented with reassignments and reallocations might return some peace and quiet to PPML</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>That would require consensus by the community for something like this proposal.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Also maybe everything after the second sentence of 4.2.3.3 should be deleted as impractical in a post-free-pool world. That is "To avoid fragmentation…"</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>An issue for a future proposal, if so.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>