[139738] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Mon Apr 18 20:02:58 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <A5072EC7-ECC4-440C-989F-6B90F5AF9D36@virtualized.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:03:15 -0500
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in =
that according to the court documents I've seen,
John Curran has stated unambiguously (on the ARIN PPML mailing list) =
that NRPM policy *was* followed. While I may disagree, at present I'm =
rather focused on understanding how he interprets and implements this =
policy. Here are my understandings at this time:
> Microsoft appears to have signed an LRSA (not an RSA as would seem to =
be required by the NPRM and as mentioned on ARIN's press release)
Court documents show that "a LRSA" has been agreed rather than "the =
RSA". As you point out, the actual text of NRPM requires RSA. Thus I =
assume that ARIN staff procedure will accept any form of RSA as =
satisfying this requirement, including the standard LRSA or a negotiated =
LRSA.
(This latter possibility makes me wonder about what MSFT actually agreed =
to, in their version of the LRSA, and whether it will be fairly offered =
to all parties...)
> and there doesn't appear to be anything suggesting Nortel entered into =
any agreement with ARIN (RSA or LRSA, however I will admit I haven't =
looked too closely)?
The court documents do not indicate that Nortel has agreed anything with =
ARIN. This brings to question, how were the blocks "released" to ARIN =
for transfer? In answer, John Curran has stated that the court filings =
satisfy this requirement without any further agreement with Nortel. =
Thus I assume that ARIN will accept any legal document confirming =
ownership and the desire to transfer.
There is another aspect of NRPM 8.3 (specified transfer policy) that =
appears, to an outside observer, to have been ignored by this =
Nortel/Microsoft transfer: needs justification. However, John Curran =
has stated that it did occur. Somehow, according to him, Microsoft has =
demonstrated a need for 666,624 IPv4 addresses in the form of the exact =
block(s) that are being transferred. (For what it's worth, I think =
"needs justification" is bad policy for a market. My only concern here =
is whether ARIN follows community developed policy, as John says they =
have.)
Cheers,
-Benson
