"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Tue Apr 30 05:46:36 UTC 2013


On 4/29/13, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org> wrote:
>> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome at ceriz.fr> wrote:
> specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.)  These same
> criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at
> regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy.

Huh?  Where did that concept come from?    There is no slow start
criterion in the transfer rule, and a transfer is by definition  not
an initial allocation or assignment activity, even if the ISP is new,
4.2 is not shown to apply;  there is a movement of an existing
allocation, assignment, or part of one;  between organizations,  a
movement of resources  due to merger or acquisition or  due to
specified transfer does not create an initial allocation;

And the transfer policy both 8.2 and 8.3  are very clear in that the
minimum size is /24,  and  not the standard minimums  for allocations
with  or without multihoming.

Would you expect ARIN to ask the ISP to receive their first /24 by
specified transfer,  to show how they will use a /20 in 3 months too?

Should there be any ambiguity,  the transfer applicant will certainly
demand the straightforward interpretation of the transfer rule,  that
does not require their first receipt of IPv4 resources to require slow
start or holding a /20,  prior to receiving their /24 through
specified transfer,  or their  initial /16   or whatever through  8.3
merger & acquisition.

Such restrictions would very obviously defeat the intent of 8.3; that
resources may be transferred.

But since conditions are listed on the recipiient of transfer, any
conditions not listed are clearly excluded...



--
-JH




More information about the NANOG mailing list