On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer <[email protected]> wrote: > ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers > > Policy statement: > Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the > transfer: from "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." > to "For transfers larger than a /16 equivalent, 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."
How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation? What makes you think /16 is the right place to start testing this idea? Traditionally /24 was the last no-justification request accepted. Why is that not the right place to start testing a new no-justification regime? For now I OPPOSE the proposal as written but I'd like to hear more. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
