Fair enough. If the 2010-6 language were removed, would that change your approach? Or is signing the RSA the main stumbling block for you?
-Scott On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 12:36 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
