Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, John Curran wrote: > ARIN works with the organization to encourage timely resolution with > regard > to excess resources (via either voluntary return or subsequent transfer. > However, as has been noted on this list, ARIN cannot

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On 7 Nov 2016, at 10:53 AM, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: Morning Bill, One item that may help clarify intent is an editorial change that the AC requested in April, and was adopted by the BoT at their May 2016 meeting.

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Ok. I'm not sure if the timing would work for this particular transaction, but it sounds like we have a real-world problem that would be fixed by removing the last paragraph of NRPM 8.2, so we should probably write up the problem statement and submit it as a policy proposal. Would you be

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > If the 2010-6 language were removed, would that change your approach? Or is > signing the RSA the main stumbling block for you? Hi Scott, The RSA standing alone, I'd at least put on the table. The lawyers will be vetting

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > The intent of this policy text was that an organization receiving a sparsely > used /16 would transfer the unused bits to other organization(s) that could > use them. For those who've not dug deep, Scott was the author of

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Bill, The intent of this policy text was that an organization receiving a sparsely used /16 would transfer the unused bits to other organization(s) that could use them. In your case, if you transferred all the /24s that are currently unused (without any renumbering), would the blocks you're

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 7, 2016, at 11:45, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, David Farmer wrote: >> What if the transfer part was made explicitly voluntary as well? Would that >> solve your worry? >> >> Personally, I'd like to

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:59 AM, David Farmer wrote: > What if the transfer part was made explicitly voluntary as well? Would that > solve your worry? > > Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see where > it is reasonable to re-justify your resources

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016, David Farmer wrote: Personally, I'd like to remove that clause all together, I do not see where it is reasonable to re-justify your resources just because of a business reorganization. It should be sufficient to submit proper legal documentation and demonstrate that the

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:53 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:35 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > >> "ARIN will proceed with processing transfer requests even if the > >> number resources of the combined organizations EXCEED WHAT CAN BE > >>

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

Morning Bill, One item that may help clarify intent is an editorial change that the AC requested in April, and was adopted by the BoT at their May 2016 meeting. https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/20160520/exhibit_d.pdf But as you and David suggested, more work may be required in this area. Hope

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

> William Herrin wrote : > As I read the last paragraph in NRPM section 8.2, in order for the /16 to be > recorded under the new subsidiary's name, the subsidiary would have to sign > an RSA, renumber the otherwise unchanging network infrastructure to meet > ARIN's current efficiency standards

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

> On Nov 6, 2016, at 12:47 , Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong 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

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong 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

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

In message Michel Py wrote: >>> Michel Py wrote : >>> Re-numbering is NOT an option regardless of the incentive. > >> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote : >> I don't want to distract from the point

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

, 2016 7:51 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question In message <F04ED1585899D842B482E7ADCA581B84593F397E@newserver.arneill-py.local>Michel Py <mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote: >Re-numbering is NOT an option regardless of the incentive

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

>> Michel Py wrote : >> Re-numbering is NOT an option regardless of the incentive. > Ronald F. Guilmette wrote : > I don't want to distract from the point you were making, but I wonder if you > might be so kind as to elaborate on the above assertion, e.g. > for the benefit of those few poor

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

In message Michel Py wrote: >Re-numbering is NOT an option regardless of the incentive. I don't want to distract from the point you were making, but I wonder if you might be so kind as to

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

I have been reading this thread with the greatest interest because I recently switched jobs and I am facing a similar situation than Bill, except that it has already happenned, we are not even a subsidiary anymore. Long story made short : after decades of merger and acquisitions, my org is

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message > > William Herrin wrote: >>Sorry Owen, I won't engage you with the relocated goal post. If you >>are correct,

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

In message William Herrin wrote: >Sorry Owen, I won't engage you with the relocated goal post. If you >are correct, the 8.2 transfer language requires a registrant whose >addresses are assigned and in use but

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Owen DeLong 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? Sorry Owen, I won't engage

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:42 PM, David R Huberman wrote: >> The language was introduced in draft policy 2010-6 whose rationale stated: >> "This policy also should dramatically increase the completion rate for >> transfer requests, as the evaluation of whether space is

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

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 > On Nov 4, 2016, at 19:52 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:45

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Nowhere does it say you are required to renumber. You’re reading that into >>> things. > In the vast majority of cases I’ve encountered, minimal renumbering can free > up more than > enough space to return to satisfy

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 19:33 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 2016, at 19:11 , William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

The language was introduced in draft policy 2010-6 whose rationale stated: "This policy also should dramatically increase the completion rate for transfer requests, as the evaluation of whether space is efficiently utilized after the transfer can occur in parallel, completely independently of

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > >> It's a public policy document. In the absence of language to the >> contrary, the MUST is implied. And if it's not a MUST then it's >> operational guidance that doesn't belong in a POLICY document at all. > >

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Perhaps, in part, because some of us think that the RSA is what is broken > rather than the language in the policy. Owen, Really? You think ARIN policy should be that folks are required to renumber just because of a

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 18:35 , David R Huberman wrote: > > >> "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 will work >> with the

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

It's a public policy document. In the absence of language to the contrary, the MUST is implied. And if it's not a MUST then it's operational guidance that doesn't belong in a POLICY document at all. Probably, yes. Nevertheless, the MUST is not there and is not implied. And I fully agree on

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:35 PM, David R Huberman wrote: >> "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 will work >> with the

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

"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 will work with the resource holder(s) to transfer the extra number resources to other organization(s) or

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:17 PM, David R Huberman wrote: > >> As I read the last paragraph in NRPM section 8.2, in order for the /16 >> to be recorded under the new subsidiary's name, the subsidiary would >> have to sign an RSA, renumber the otherwise unchanging network >>

Re: [arin-ppml] re-org question

As I read the last paragraph in NRPM section 8.2, in order for the /16 to be recorded under the new subsidiary's name, the subsidiary would have to sign an RSA, renumber the otherwise unchanging network infrastructure to meet ARIN's current efficiency standards and return or sell the excess IP