On Apr 30, 2013, at 10:56 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013, John Curran wrote: On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:46 AM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: > On 4/29/13, John Curran <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <[email protected]<javascript:;>> >> wrote: >>> On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <[email protected]<javascript:;>> wrote: >> specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same >> criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at >> regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy. > > Huh? Where did that concept come from? Alas, NRPM 8.3 requires that "the recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address resources _under current ARIN policies_ ..." This says demonstrate the need for resources. The "under current policies" bit is redundant, because the transfer policy is referring to itself. Of course the current policies always apply; so this is some strange infinitely recursive oddity. Jimmy - Actually, I'm quite confident in the interpretation... Note that the reading that this language would require qualification under current IPv4 allocation policies was also confirmed in the Staff Assessment when the proposed NRPM 8.3 language was under consideration as a draft policy - <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-August/022870.html> It is easy enough to change if desired (and apparently some folks are looking at doing that per any earlier reply on this thread) but as it stands there is a chance that ISPs seeking to obtain IPv4 space from the transfer market will not be able to participate if they haven't made use of provider-assigned space first. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
