Hi Owen,
I sent this from the wrong address so it didn't post to the list.
I figured I would just ignore that, but since you replied I will answer.
Free pool addresses are costless, yet have monetary value.
For this reason it makes more sense to scrutinize free pool allocations
to prevent a rip-off of public resources.
Actually, I think it makes sense from a serialization perspective.
If there aren’t other people working on transfers and transfers aren’t
getting ahead of free pool allocations in line for those people to review
as a result of the team review process, than i’m fine with the existing
system as being fair and equitable.
If people doing transfers are bypassing the lineup of requests going
through this process and getting handled faster as a result, then I have an
issue and am concerned that the situation is unfair to free pool
requestors.
Yes, I indicated that serialization was a benefit, but fleeting, unless you
really think people will be making significant use of the waiting list.
Legacy addresses are also treated differently in policy.
No. Show me any policy statement in the entire NRPM which states that there
is such a thing as a legacy address, let alone provides differentiated
policy for it. That simply isn’t true.
What is true is that there are legacy allocations/assignments which were
made by ARIN predecessors under different (and mostly unwritten) policies
without any sort of contractual documentation between the issuer and the
recipient.
The resources themselves do not have any special status and if they are
transferred through the standard ARIN process under 8.2/8.3/8.4, the
allocation/assignment to the recipient does not have any special status.
The recipient must sign an RSA with ARIN and pays the same fees as anyone
else with an ARIN allocation/assignment of the same size.
I thought ARIN allowed legacy holders to sign an LRSA and pay significantly
less than non legacy addresses. Isn't that a difference?
It's silly to object to 2014-14 because it has a size limit in it, aren't
there size limits throughout the NRPM?
I don’t think any of my objections to 2014-14 have been related to the size
limit. I think 2014-14 is generally a bad idea and a step in the wrong
direction. I have expressed that if there is strong community support
(which I don’t currently see here) for it, I would accept 2014-14 with a
smaller limit and a time limit as being a reasonable experiment to see
whether such a policy is likely to cause harm or not.
Not yours, but John Curran offered this as sort of a counter-argument to
2014-14, based on fairness. Although he quickly indicated that it could be
overcome.
And I don’t consider preserving team review beyond the time it is required
for the free pool necessary. As I said, I want to make sure that both
classes of requestor are being treated fairly and consistently. If requests
which do not require team review are waiting their place in line behind
requests that do, then I have no problem even if they are not “team
reviewed”. It was not clear from earlier information that this was the
case.
OK, I think that is a new position and I think it makes sense. Team review
for both transfers and free pool allocations until the free pool expires. I
guess we'll need a definition of expiration then, but it seems fair. Maybe
if we pick the right definition, we can avoid a thousand team reviews of
/24s.
Regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
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.
