On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> 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 PP105 which became draft 2010-6. This was the draft policy which first introduced the language to the NRPM. He is thus uniquely well qualified to explain its intent. > In your case, if you transferred all the /24s that are currently > unused (without any renumbering), would the blocks you're keeping meet a 50% > utilization threshold, if you include planned 24 month growth? Hi Scott, In my case the question is moot. I'd advise my client to update POCs at ARIN and place a carefully crafted contract effecting transfer of control into a locked safe. I can't think of a single sane reason I'd advise them to consider renumbering, changing BGP advertisements, dealing with IP brokers, evaluating the ARIN RSA contract, etc. in the midst of an already complicated re-organization. The policies structured as they are, I'd have to be out of my mind to actually tell ARIN the addresses had been transferred to a new organization. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.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.
