ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

[ARIN]

ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

The proposal originator revised the proposal.

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



## * ##


ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

Proposal Originator: Martin Hannigan

Proposal Version: 2

Date: 23 May 2012

Policy statement:

8.4 Transfers of Legacy Resources to Specified Recipients

8.4.1 Legacy Number Resource and ASN Transfers

   Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred to
organizations in any RIR's service region.

8.4.2 Minimum Transfer Size

   Legacy IPv4 number resources and ASN's may be transferred in blocks
of the minimum allocation unit of the recipient RIR.

8.4.3 Needs Assessments and Utilization Requirements

   Needs assessments and utilization requirements for legacy number
resources and ASN's are waived.

8.4.4 Registry Services

ARIN will insure that all parties to a legacy number resource or ASN
transfer agree to provide and maintain accurate WHOIS contact data in
compliance with WHOIS policy. Transfers shall not be completed until
all submitted WHOIS update data has been verified as accurate.

8.4.5. Chain of Custody Validation

No resources may be transferred without a verifiable chain of custody
demonstrating that a party desiring to transfer a resource is the
legitimate holder of such a resource and is eligible to transfer the
resource. Upon confirmation of a valid chain of custody of a resource,
ARIN will certify that resource as transferable. ARIN will maintain
this certification on file for future reference.

8.4.6 Flawed Custody and Fraudulent Applications

ARIN may reclaim legacy resources that fail chain of custody
certifications or are deemed fraudulently obtained at it's discretion.


Rationale:

The ARIN region has a large pool of legacy number resources and ASN's
that most agree is causing the pace of IPv6 adoption to under-perform.
Providing a means through policy to exhaust these pools "should"
stimulate the adoption of IPv6. The language for non legacy address
and ASN transfers is unaffected in this proposal.

The proposal seeks to set clear and written standards for both the
legacy and non legacy number resource and ASN transfer function along
a recognized boundary. Standard setting will have a desirable
technically oriented result that would benefit the community by moving
us closer to a) full compatibility of 16 and 32 bit ASN's b) bringing
the legacy trading market entirely above board c) providing standards
for them to operate by and d) providing for full transparency and
accountability to the community. Requiring a chain of custody
validation as part of the process will hopefully discourage
unauthorized transferors from wasting the effort and capital of
legitimate transferees and identify resources that are potentially
available for reclamation. The whois requirements are a small price to
pay for the ability to transfer a legacy resource. It should also be
noted that no party is prevented from signing an LRSA or RSA if they
so desire.

It is recognized that this is a fairly interesting piece of policy
that would benefit tremendously from legal and staff review.