We support this policy.
Typically under contractual arrangements various assignments are allowed.
It sounds like there are protections in place to make sure that the IP space
remains ineligible for transfer outside of the merged entity for the entirety
of the 60 month window.
Eric E. Lee
Vice
FWIW, I prefer the language proposed by Leif.
Owen
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 10:27 , Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
>
> I would support either your suggestion or Leif’s.
>
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
> -r
>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>>
>> How about
Why would anybody buy the rare company with a lowly /22 instead of just buying
one of the ubiquitous /22s on the market?
If the buyer is complicit in the original fraud on the waiting list, they make
themselves an obvious target for potential revocation after engaging in the
subsequent 8.2
On 21/07/2020 14:39, Rob Seastrom wrote:
This proposal may bring an issue in such scenario and perhaps there should
still be some minimal time restriction that makes it more difficult for
fraudsters to act with such intention.
The counter argument is that putting such time restrictions in
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:29 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> I remain opposed to this proposal for the same reasons stated before.
>
> I don't see what can avoid that someone to register a new company, get into
> the waiting list, receive an allocation and right after that be "purchased"
>
Yes, that would work well. That seems to be clearer language than my
initial attempt.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020, Leif Sawyer wrote:
"Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of holding
are not permitted,
I would support either your suggestion or Leif’s.
Thank you for your thoughts!
-r
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN A
> RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the
"Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of
holding are not permitted, [...]"
This would seem to address Albert's issue, and remove the uncertainty of
"downgrade" while allowing for a "complete return" of IPv6 space.
Leif Sawyer
GCI | Enterprise Security
How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN
A RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s
current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
At least this avoids the "Hotel California" issue.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Hi Albert,
As a practical matter, I don’t think the NRPM overrides your ability to
terminate your contract with ARIN should that become a business requirement.
Do you have alternative language to suggest that is clear, concise, and
preserves the intent of narrowly boxing in nano-allocations
Even at $10/address, we are already past the point where this is viable.
And of course, if the only asset of the new company is the IPv4 resources,
selling the entire company to the new holder neatly bypasses any time
restrictions that the NRPM imposes. Likely this will be done right after
I remain opposed to this proposal for the same reasons stated before.
I don't see what can avoid that someone to register a new company, get
into the waiting list, receive an allocation and right after that be
"purchased" by another company which is not entitled to be in the
waiting list
I have a problem with this language:
"Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted
regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
Downgrades include in my mind a return, and thus a downgrade to 0. This
language seems to lock in anyone who
On 16 July 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
You
On 16 July 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
ARIN-2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8
Waitlist
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory
Council met on 16 July 2020.
The AC has advanced the following to the Board of Trustees for review:
* ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
* ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
* ARIN-2019-20:
16 matches
Mail list logo
