On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > You can return as small as a /24. > > If you’re using half, then you can keep it. > > So, at most, you have to renumber 126 hosts out of each of half of your /25s. > > How is this not minimal again? > > Owen
I suspect Owen is trolling for effect here. Renumbering 126 hosts out of 255 is only slightly less than half. I'm guessing Owen would be unhappy, were he to be told by his doctor that he needed a surgical operation in which a minimal amount of his body mass would be removed; but upon delving deeper, found that the doctor would be removing slightly less than half his body. Using the term "minimal" to apply to renumbering nearly half a block strays well past the realm of 'stretching the definition' into the neighborhood of 'trolling'. If the community does indeed think the language should stay, and that renumbering should be required, we should perhaps put some clarity around what is expected. If an organization is using 40% of each /24, would the ARIN community be happy if the organization renumbered such that alternating /24s were now 80% filled, and returned every other /24 to ARIN, as individual /24 subnets? That would meet the letter of the law, so to speak, but would ensure those blocks could never be aggregated into a larger allocation. (As a side note, this could be a good way to ensure a steady supply of /24s for small entrants, while ensuring no larger entity can ever make use of them.) For the record, I think the sentence is confusing, and should have the "will" replaced with "may", to read as follows: "ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the number resources of the combined organizations exceed what can be justified under current ARIN policy. In that event, ARIN *may* work with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra number resources to other organization(s) or accept a voluntary return of the extra number resources to ARIN." emphasis on *may* included only to make it clear which word was changed; emphasis need not stay in the resulting NRPM text. That should clear up confusion about it being a requirement, and instead make it clear this is an optional exercise. Thanks! Matt _______________________________________________ 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.
