Hi Andrew,
Yeah, you're right, my bad.
I thought there was a limit on the recipient, too.
If there is enough interest in pursuing this policy change, I suppose
language can be added that restricts needs-free transfers to once per year.
It was my intention that such a limit be in place.
Can we consider, for future discussion, that such language is included in
the proposal?
I will submit a changed proposal tomorrow with a limit of one needs-free
transfer per year, like this:
"For block sizes of /16 and smaller and for recipients who have not engaged
in a transfer during the previous year, etc."
Regards,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Dul" <[email protected]>
To: "Mike Burns" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
Transfers (Sandra Brown)
On 4/30/2014 4:56 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I don't understand what the problem is.
Are you saying that a recipient who wanted more than a /16 but was
unwilling to demonstrate need would create separate entities?
Separate entities I don't believe are needed, just slice up the block in
to smaller blocks, and then transfer the smaller blocks. (If you wanted
you could get tricky with the bit-math so the sliced up blocks can't be
aggregated into a larger block)
Remember only one transfer per year.
My read is that the one year restriction is only on the source entity
and it only prevents them from receiving addresses within that period,
not from doing additional transfers out.
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Dul" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small
IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)
On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:
BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it
would take a lot of transfers to hoard. It would take 256 transfers to
stockpile a /8. This is the 2nd means to prevent hoarding. Most
companies wanting that many IP's would simply do needs justification.
It seems trivial to me to divide a /8 into /16s or any other smaller
block so I could transfer it without doing the needs justification. I
could write a script for the transfer templates and just send them off.
Once the legwork for the first transfer is complete, the rest should
just flow right through. Nothing I see in the current text or policy
prevents someone from taking a larger block and slicing it up to get
under the /16 limit. Since most of the brokers are out speculating that
these blocks have significant value it seems clear that if the large
players need them they will just be paying a staff person a few extra
hours to manage this overhead.
Does the current policy need to change? Yes. Do I think this policy
proposal is the right answer, No.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
