Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3
Transfer Policy (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3
Transfer Policy (Chris Grundemann)
3. Re: REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and8.3
Transfer Policy (Mike Burns)
4. Re: REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and8.3
Transfer Policy (Mike Burns)
5. Re: REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3
Transfer Policy (David Farmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:26:36 -0600
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning
8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
1. first bullet, s/used/use/ in that the acquired assets should still be using
the resources in order to justify an M&A transfer.
2. Third bullet should read "current and future ARIN policies".
3. Suggest updating the minimum transfer size specification to reflect "Current
ARIN minimum allocation or assignment policy as defined in section 4 or section
6 or the original assignment size, whichever is smaller." since over time we
have seen changes in these minimums and I would prefer that the transfer policy
automatically track other policy changes.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Chris Grundemann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hail PPML,
>
> Following discussion at the 30th ARIN PPM, ARIN-2012-8 has been
> revised. A change-log has been added to the rationale. Please send
> feedback at your earliest convenience.
>
> ----8<----8<----8<----
> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
>
> Date: 19 November 2012
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second
> paragraph remains unchanged):
>
> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:
>
> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets
> that used the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN
> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation.
> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to
> the status of the transferred resources.
> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources.
> * The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.
> * The minimum IPv4 transfer size is a /24, or the original assignment
> size, whichever is smaller.
> * The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.
>
> Rationale:
>
> The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level
> the bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from
> specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many
> can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds
> requirements which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must
> be the undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an
> RSA (and is subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for
> IPv6.
>
> Changes following discussion at the ARIN XXX public policy meeting:
> 1) Changed the first bullet. This was an area for objections because
> it did not allow chain of custody transfers, so now instead of saying
> that the purchased company must be the current registrant holder it
> simply says that there can not be any dispute as to who the registered
> holder is.
> 2) Removed the " such that their continued need is justified" text
> from the second bullet, this was another area of debate at the meeting
> and justification is already covered in paragraph 2 of 8.2 (which
> remains unchanged).
> 3) Swapped the first two bullets.
> 4) Added "covering all transferred resources" to the RSA bullet, for clarity.
> 5) Swapped the third and fourth bullets.
> 6) Altered the IPv4 minimum allocation to bring it in line with 4.10
> resources and any future exceptions.
>
> Timetable for implementation: immediate
> ----8<----8<----8<----
>
> Cheers,
> ~Chris
>
>
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> http://chrisgrundemann.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:48:06 -0700
From: Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>
To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning
8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
Message-ID:
<cac1-dtnjonlhglrj1eg5zubrdo00yh6jguhum-vrwqnoo6s...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Thanks for the feedback Owen.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. first bullet, s/used/use/ in that the acquired assets should still be
> using the resources in order to justify an M&A transfer.
That would constitute a change from the existing text, which several
folks spoke against at the PPM. I'd like to get more feedback before
changing it back again. Comments from others in the community would be
very much appreciated.
> 2. Third bullet should read "current and future ARIN policies".
Good catch, thanks.
> 3. Suggest updating the minimum transfer size specification to reflect
> "Current ARIN minimum allocation or assignment policy as defined in section 4
> or section 6 or the original assignment size, whichever is smaller." since
> over time we have seen changes in these minimums and I would prefer that the
> transfer policy automatically track other policy changes.
I believe that would effectively allow everyone to transfer v4/28s
today based on 4.10 - is this something the community wants to allow?
More feedback in this area would also be helpful.
Cheers,
~Chris
>
> Owen
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Chris Grundemann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hail PPML,
>>
>> Following discussion at the 30th ARIN PPM, ARIN-2012-8 has been
>> revised. A change-log has been added to the rationale. Please send
>> feedback at your earliest convenience.
>>
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
>>
>> Date: 19 November 2012
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second
>> paragraph remains unchanged):
>>
>> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
>> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:
>>
>> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets
>> that used the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN
>> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation.
>> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to
>> the status of the transferred resources.
>> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources.
>> * The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.
>> * The minimum IPv4 transfer size is a /24, or the original assignment
>> size, whichever is smaller.
>> * The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level
>> the bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from
>> specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many
>> can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds
>> requirements which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must
>> be the undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an
>> RSA (and is subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for
>> IPv6.
>>
>> Changes following discussion at the ARIN XXX public policy meeting:
>> 1) Changed the first bullet. This was an area for objections because
>> it did not allow chain of custody transfers, so now instead of saying
>> that the purchased company must be the current registrant holder it
>> simply says that there can not be any dispute as to who the registered
>> holder is.
>> 2) Removed the " such that their continued need is justified" text
>> from the second bullet, this was another area of debate at the meeting
>> and justification is already covered in paragraph 2 of 8.2 (which
>> remains unchanged).
>> 3) Swapped the first two bullets.
>> 4) Added "covering all transferred resources" to the RSA bullet, for clarity.
>> 5) Swapped the third and fourth bullets.
>> 6) Altered the IPv4 minimum allocation to bring it in line with 4.10
>> resources and any future exceptions.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ~Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:55:37 -0500
From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Grundemann" <[email protected]>, "Owen DeLong"
<[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning
8.2 and8.3 Transfer Policy
Message-ID: <15DEDDB2E4DB401D93F39AFB9790CD5A@MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Chris,
I support Owen's third point.
I reject Owen's first point.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Grundemann
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:48 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: ARIN PPML ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2
and8.3 Transfer Policy
Thanks for the feedback Owen.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. first bullet, s/used/use/ in that the acquired assets should still be
> using the resources in order to justify an M&A transfer.
That would constitute a change from the existing text, which several
folks spoke against at the PPM. I'd like to get more feedback before
changing it back again. Comments from others in the community would be
very much appreciated.
> 2. Third bullet should read "current and future ARIN policies".
Good catch, thanks.
> 3. Suggest updating the minimum transfer size specification to reflect
> "Current ARIN minimum allocation or assignment policy as defined in
> section 4 or section 6 or the original assignment size, whichever is
> smaller." since over time we have seen changes in these minimums and I
> would prefer that the transfer policy automatically track other policy
> changes.
I believe that would effectively allow everyone to transfer v4/28s
today based on 4.10 - is this something the community wants to allow?
More feedback in this area would also be helpful.
Cheers,
~Chris
>
> Owen
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hail PPML,
>>
>> Following discussion at the 30th ARIN PPM, ARIN-2012-8 has been
>> revised. A change-log has been added to the rationale. Please send
>> feedback at your earliest convenience.
>>
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
>>
>> Date: 19 November 2012
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second
>> paragraph remains unchanged):
>>
>> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
>> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:
>>
>> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets
>> that used the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN
>> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation.
>> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to
>> the status of the transferred resources.
>> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources.
>> * The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.
>> * The minimum IPv4 transfer size is a /24, or the original assignment
>> size, whichever is smaller.
>> * The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level
>> the bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from
>> specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many
>> can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds
>> requirements which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must
>> be the undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an
>> RSA (and is subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for
>> IPv6.
>>
>> Changes following discussion at the ARIN XXX public policy meeting:
>> 1) Changed the first bullet. This was an area for objections because
>> it did not allow chain of custody transfers, so now instead of saying
>> that the purchased company must be the current registrant holder it
>> simply says that there can not be any dispute as to who the registered
>> holder is.
>> 2) Removed the " such that their continued need is justified" text
>> from the second bullet, this was another area of debate at the meeting
>> and justification is already covered in paragraph 2 of 8.2 (which
>> remains unchanged).
>> 3) Swapped the first two bullets.
>> 4) Added "covering all transferred resources" to the RSA bullet, for
>> clarity.
>> 5) Swapped the third and fourth bullets.
>> 6) Altered the IPv4 minimum allocation to bring it in line with 4.10
>> resources and any future exceptions.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ~Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:55:37 -0500
From: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Grundemann" <[email protected]>, "Owen DeLong"
<[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning
8.2 and8.3 Transfer Policy
Message-ID: <15DEDDB2E4DB401D93F39AFB9790CD5A@MPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Hi Chris,
I support Owen's third point.
I reject Owen's first point.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Grundemann
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 2:48 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: ARIN PPML ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2
and8.3 Transfer Policy
Thanks for the feedback Owen.
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. first bullet, s/used/use/ in that the acquired assets should still be
> using the resources in order to justify an M&A transfer.
That would constitute a change from the existing text, which several
folks spoke against at the PPM. I'd like to get more feedback before
changing it back again. Comments from others in the community would be
very much appreciated.
> 2. Third bullet should read "current and future ARIN policies".
Good catch, thanks.
> 3. Suggest updating the minimum transfer size specification to reflect
> "Current ARIN minimum allocation or assignment policy as defined in
> section 4 or section 6 or the original assignment size, whichever is
> smaller." since over time we have seen changes in these minimums and I
> would prefer that the transfer policy automatically track other policy
> changes.
I believe that would effectively allow everyone to transfer v4/28s
today based on 4.10 - is this something the community wants to allow?
More feedback in this area would also be helpful.
Cheers,
~Chris
>
> Owen
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 19, 2012, at 9:55 AM, Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hail PPML,
>>
>> Following discussion at the 30th ARIN PPM, ARIN-2012-8 has been
>> revised. A change-log has been added to the rationale. Please send
>> feedback at your earliest convenience.
>>
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8 Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
>>
>> Date: 19 November 2012
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Replace the first paragraph of section 8.2 with the following (second
>> paragraph remains unchanged):
>>
>> ARIN will consider requests for the transfer of number resources in
>> the case of mergers and acquisitions under the following conditions:
>>
>> * The new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets
>> that used the resources transferred from the current registrant. ARIN
>> will maintain an up-to-date list of acceptable types of documentation.
>> * The current registrant must not be involved in any dispute as to
>> the status of the transferred resources.
>> * The new entity must sign an RSA covering all transferred resources.
>> * The transferred resources will be subject to current ARIN policies.
>> * The minimum IPv4 transfer size is a /24, or the original assignment
>> size, whichever is smaller.
>> * The minimum IPv6 transfer size is a /48.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The base intent here is to lower confusion, raise clarity, and level
>> the bar between 8.2 and 8.3 transfers. M&A transfers are distinct from
>> specified transfers and not all of the same rules can apply - but many
>> can and should. Therefor this policy change explicitly adds
>> requirements which do not exist in 8.2 policy text today: Source must
>> be the undisputed current registered holder, recipient must sign an
>> RSA (and is subject to policy), and /24 minimum for IPv4, /48 for
>> IPv6.
>>
>> Changes following discussion at the ARIN XXX public policy meeting:
>> 1) Changed the first bullet. This was an area for objections because
>> it did not allow chain of custody transfers, so now instead of saying
>> that the purchased company must be the current registrant holder it
>> simply says that there can not be any dispute as to who the registered
>> holder is.
>> 2) Removed the " such that their continued need is justified" text
>> from the second bullet, this was another area of debate at the meeting
>> and justification is already covered in paragraph 2 of 8.2 (which
>> remains unchanged).
>> 3) Swapped the first two bullets.
>> 4) Added "covering all transferred resources" to the RSA bullet, for
>> clarity.
>> 5) Swapped the third and fourth bullets.
>> 6) Altered the IPv4 minimum allocation to bring it in line with 4.10
>> resources and any future exceptions.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate
>> ----8<----8<----8<----
>>
>> Cheers,
>> ~Chris
>>
>>
>> --
>> @ChrisGrundemann
>> http://chrisgrundemann.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
--
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:38:41 -0600
From: David Farmer <[email protected]>
To: Chris Grundemann <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN PPML <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] REVISED: Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning
8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 11/19/12 13:48 , Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>> 3. Suggest updating the minimum transfer size specification to reflect
>> "Current ARIN minimum allocation or assignment policy as defined in section
>> 4 or section 6 or the original assignment size, whichever is smaller." since
>> over time we have seen changes in these minimums and I would prefer that the
>> transfer policy automatically track other policy changes.
>
> I believe that would effectively allow everyone to transfer v4/28s
> today based on 4.10 - is this something the community wants to allow?
> More feedback in this area would also be helpful.
No, I think Owen is mostly right, but I would change the order and
simplify for additional clarity to;
"* The minimum transfer size is, the original allocation size or the
current applicable minimum allocation size in current policy, whichever
is smaller."
I believe that means you can transfer the original allocation size what
ever it is and if you want to transfer something else it must conform to
current policy, that means /28 within the range reserved in 4.10 and /24
for a small multihomed end user, or a /22 for a multihomed ISP, etc...
Put another way, if you are doing only a partial transfer then you can't
break things up smaller than current policy allows, and if the current
block is already smaller, than you can only transfer the whole block.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 89, Issue 13
*****************************************
