"It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
jcurran at arin.net
Wed May 1 10:03:47 UTC 2013
On May 1, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Now, the actual language that is in the NRPM says "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply* of IP address resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA." ... if someone thinks that "demonstrate the need...under current ARIN policies" means not just "demonstrate the need" but also "fall into compliance with every nuance of section 4 that might be applied if they were getting the addresses from ARIN" (ex. 220.127.116.11 requiring a /20 minimum for ISPs) then I guess we need another policy modification.
Correct, if one considers that a problem (particularly at runout)
> Is that really how ARIN staff is interpreting it?
Also correct; as noted in prior email and per the staff assessments since this
language was first introduced, "demonstrate the need ... under current ARIN
policies" first requires assessment against current ARIN policies (only with
the longer horizon) to determine if one is a valid recipient.
> And why is this discussion here and not on arin-ppml?
Indeterminate; it appears to be follow-up to discussion about IPv4 runout in
the region being potentially earlier than expected. arin-ppml is definitely
a more appropriate list for such discussions.
President and CEO
More information about the NANOG