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

[arin-ppml] re-org question

Hi Folks, I have an NRPM 8.2 question for you. One of the orgs I work with is contemplating a reorganization in which the IT support group and all of its assets will be split off in to a wholly owned subsidiary. One of these assets is a legacy /16. As I read the last paragraph in NRPM section