On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> I disagree. While it is not specifically called out, the simple fact is that > 8.3 transfer policy specifically states that IPv4 transfers should be subject > to the same policies as IPv4 free pool allocations. It does make an exception > for the “speculation timeframe” allowed in the request, but otherwise I > believe that the community’s expectation is that they are treated the same > and subject to the same policies and limitations. > > How do other members of the community feel about this? It would have been my expectation that all number assignments/allocations (whether from free pool or transfer) would undergo the same review in the same way in order to insure that policies in place are applied consistently unless called out in policy that the practices should be different. I am not totally convinced that extending the formal team review from a /16 (or larger) to all sized requests is needed to achieve a consistent (and fair) result(*), but if it is perceived to be needed, then that team review should be (and should have been) applied across all needs assessments. It is acknowledged that the staffing issues for team reviews remain. Gary (*) In hindsight, I think moving to something like a /22 or larger would have been a better plan to balance staff resource needs while minimizing any impacts of lack of consistency. _______________________________________________ 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.
