Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Draft Policies and Proposals

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
Status:
Implemented 21 February 2017  
Discussion Tracking
Mailing List:
Formal introduction on PPML on 22 March 2016

Origin - ARIN-prop-226

Draft Policy - 22 March 2016

Recommended Draft Policy - 21 June 2016

Last Call - 26 October 2016

Recommended to Board: 22 November 2016

Implemented: 21 February 2017

Public Policy Mailing List
ARIN Public Policy Meeting:

ARIN 37

ARIN 38

ARIN Advisory Council:

AC Shepherds:
Andrew Dul, Amy Potter

ARIN Board of Trustees: 19 December 2016
Revisions Implementation
Implemented 21 February 2017

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

Date: 26 October 2016

AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy:

This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration by ensuring that IPv4 resources, which are specially designated for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition, are readily available for many years into the future. This is done by ensuring the resources remain in their originally designated pool rather than being moved into the general IPv4 address pool via a transfer. This proposal is technically sound and is supported by the community.

Problem Statement:

Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools.

Policy statement:

Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:"

Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

##########

Earlier Version

##########

Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

Date: 21 June 2016

AC assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy:

This proposal enables fair and impartial number resource administration by ensuring that IPv4 resources, which are specially designated for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transition, are readily available for many years into the future. This is done by ensuring the resources remain in their originally designated pool rather than being moved into the general IPv4 address pool via a transfer. This proposal is technically sound and is supported by the community.

Problem Statement:

Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools.

Policy statement:

Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:"

Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

##########

ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT
Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1
RESERVED POOL TRANSFER POLICY
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_1.html

Date of Assessment: 13 June 2016
___
1. Summary (Staff Understanding)

This policy would make IPv4 addresses issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 ineligible for transfer inside the NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies.
___
2. Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

* If this policy is implemented, ARIN staff would not allow NRPM 8.3 and 8.4 transfers to include IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 policies.

* ARIN staff would continue to allow IPv4 addresses previously issued under NRPM 4.4 and 4.10 to be included in Merger and Acquisition (NRPM 8.2) transfers.

* This policy could be implemented as written.

B. ARIN General Counsel – Legal Assessment

The policy does not create a material legal issue. It should be noted that ARIN does permit transfers of IPV4 resources pursuant to 8.3 and 8.4. This policy is an exception to that transferability and is consistent with the intent and of the policy by which these allocations were made.
___
3. Resource Impact

Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:

* Updated guidelines and internal procedures

* Staff training
___
4. Proposal / Draft Policy Text Assessed

Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1
Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

Date: 22 March 2016

Problem Statement:

Section 8 of the current NRPM does not distinguish between the transfer of blocks from addresses that have been reserved for specific uses and other addresses that can be transferred. In sections 4.4 and 4.10 there are specific address blocks set aside, based on the need for critical infrastructure and IPv6 transitions. Two issues arise if transfers of reserved address space occur under the current language of section 8. First, if transfers of 4.4 or 4.10 space occur under the current policy requirements set forth in sections 8.3 and 8.4, the recipients will be able to acquire space that was originally reserved for a specific purpose without ever providing evidence that they will be using the space for either critical infrastructure or IPv6 transition. Second, if we allow an allocation or assignment from the block reserved in section 4.10 to be transferred out of the region, it would complicate the single aggregate from which providers are being asked to allow in block sizes smaller than a /24. This policy would limit the transfer of addresses from reserved pools.

Policy statement:

Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the transfer:"

Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Search Related Content

Loading

full site search