"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
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:
>> 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.
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.
President and CEO
More information about the NANOG