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

• Previous message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Next message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?  

Alas, NRPM 8.3 requires that "the recipient must demonstrate the need for up 
to a 24-month supply of IP address resources _under current ARIN policies_ ..."
which requires that transfer recipients be able demonstrate need per current 
IPv4 allocation or allocation policies.  If you could not qualify for any IPv4
assignment or allocation from ARIN, then you are not a valid recipient.  This
language (or very similar) has been in the 8.3 transfer policy since inception
in 2009 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html> and effectively
links transfers to same needs-determination language as used for assignments
(only allowing for a much larger block to be transferred at 24-months than 
the ISP 3-month allocation size.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

• Previous message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Next message (by thread): "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]