[162681] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: "It's the end of the world as we know it" -- REM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Tue Apr 30 06:30:08 2013
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:29:21 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXDvktwQjoeRKq2BtMmX=iK8bjexqiOqNtHirksoyE41A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/13, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:
>>> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "J=E9r=F4me Nicolle" <jerome@ceriz.fr> 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.
>=20
> Huh? Where did that concept come from? =20
Alas, NRPM 8.3 requires that "the recipient must demonstrate the need for u=
p=20
to a 24-month supply of IP address resources _under current ARIN policies_ =
..."
which requires that transfer recipients be able demonstrate need per curren=
t=20
IPv4 allocation or allocation policies. If you could not qualify for any I=
Pv4
assignment or allocation from ARIN, then you are not a valid recipient. Th=
is
language (or very similar) has been in the 8.3 transfer policy since incept=
ion
in 2009 <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html> and effectively
links transfers to same needs-determination language as used for assignment=
s
(only allowing for a much larger block to be transferred at 24-months than=
=20
the ISP 3-month allocation size.)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
