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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Wed May 1 03:18:15 UTC 2013


On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com<mailto:mysidia at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, John Curran wrote:
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com<javascript:;>> wrote:

> On 4/29/13, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<javascript:;>> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee at asgard.org<javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome at ceriz.fr<javascript:;>> 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_ ..."

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.

Jimmy -

  Actually, I'm quite confident in the interpretation...  Note that the reading that this language
  would require qualification under current IPv4 allocation policies was also confirmed in the
  Staff Assessment when the proposed NRPM 8.3 language was under consideration as a
  draft policy - <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-August/022870.html>

  It is easy enough to change if desired (and apparently some folks are looking at doing that
  per any earlier reply on this thread) but as it stands there is a chance  that ISPs seeking to
  obtain IPv4 space from the transfer market will not be able to participate if they haven't made
  use of provider-assigned space first.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





More information about the NANOG mailing list