[162753] 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)
Wed May 1 06:04:02 2013
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:03:47 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5180C96C.1050709@matthew.at>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 1, 2013, at 3:51 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> Now, the actual language that is in the NRPM says "The recipient must dem=
onstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply* of IP address resources unde=
r current ARIN policies and sign an RSA." ... if someone thinks that "demon=
strate the need...under current ARIN policies" means not just "demonstrate =
the need" but also "fall into compliance with every nuance of section 4 tha=
t might be applied if they were getting the addresses from ARIN" (ex. 4.2.1=
.5 requiring a /20 minimum for ISPs) then I guess we need another policy mo=
dification.
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 t=
his=20
language was first introduced, "demonstrate the need ... under current ARIN=
=20
policies" first requires assessment against current ARIN policies (only wit=
h=20
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 i=
n
the region being potentially earlier than expected. arin-ppml is definitel=
y
a more appropriate list for such discussions.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
