IPv4 address exchange

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Tue Apr 19 00:03:15 UTC 2011

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that according to the court documents I've seen,

John Curran has stated unambiguously (on the ARIN PPML mailing list) that NRPM policy *was* followed.  While I may disagree, at present I'm rather focused on understanding how he interprets and implements this policy.  Here are my understandings at this time:

> Microsoft appears to have signed an LRSA (not an RSA as would seem to be required by the NPRM and as mentioned on ARIN's press release)

Court documents show that "a LRSA" has been agreed rather than "the RSA".  As you point out, the actual text of NRPM requires RSA.  Thus I assume that ARIN staff procedure will accept any form of RSA as satisfying this requirement, including the standard LRSA or a negotiated LRSA.

(This latter possibility makes me wonder about what MSFT actually agreed to, in their version of the LRSA, and whether it will be fairly offered to all parties...)

> and there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting Nortel entered into any agreement with ARIN (RSA or LRSA, however I will admit I haven't looked too closely)?

The court documents do not indicate that Nortel has agreed anything with ARIN.  This brings to question, how were the blocks "released" to ARIN for transfer?  In answer, John Curran has stated that the court filings satisfy this requirement without any further agreement with Nortel.  Thus I assume that ARIN will accept any legal document confirming ownership and the desire to transfer.

There is another aspect of NRPM 8.3 (specified transfer policy) that appears, to an outside observer, to have been ignored by this Nortel/Microsoft transfer: needs justification.  However, John Curran has stated that it did occur.  Somehow, according to him, Microsoft has demonstrated a need for 666,624 IPv4 addresses in the form of the exact block(s) that are being transferred.  (For what it's worth, I think "needs justification" is bad policy for a market. My only concern here is whether ARIN follows community developed policy, as John says they have.)


More information about the NANOG mailing list