"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
mysidia at gmail.com
Wed May 1 02:56:29 UTC 2013
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, John Curran 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
> to a 24-month supply of IP address resources _under current ARIN policies_
> This says demonstrate the need for resources.
The "under current policies" bit is redundant, because the transfer policy
is referring to itself. Of course the current policies always apply; so
this is some strange infinitely recursive oddity.
It doesn't say the qualifications and requirements will be the same as if
the transfer request was a request for a /20 allocation from the free pool,
or as if the transfer were an assignment (things that it is not); only that
the transfer policy asserts the requirement to demonstrate need,
As long as the need can be demonstrated as explained in 4.1, then any
8.3 transfer should be approved, even if the criteria given in 4.2 for
initial allocations are not met.
Since there is not yet a policy there that addresses or places specific
requirements for need determination for transferred resources, as-opposed
to allocation requests
The initial allocation rule should not be getting applied to 8.3 transfers
in any case...
More information about the NANOG