Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

ARIN-prop-235: Clarify generic references to "IP Addresses" in NRPM

Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong

Date: 27 January 2017

Problem Statement:

This is intended as an editorial change. It is trivial and does not change the meaning of policy.

There are numerous references in Section 4, and one in Section 8, to the term "IP address(es)" or simply "addresses" which are not specific as to IP version even though the intent is specifically IPv4 addresses.

Policy statement:

Change the references in the following sections to "IP Address(es)" or "address(es) to "IPv4 Address(es)"

4.1.5: …requested IPv4 address…

4.1.8: ...contiguous block of IPv4 addresses...

4.2.1.1: ...allocates blocks of IPv4 addresses...

4.2.1.4: ...available IPv4 addresses... and ...Therefore, IPv4 address space...

4.2.1.5: …larger IPv4 address…

4.2.3.2: …reassigning IPv4 address space… (could also be changed to "reassigning such space" as the preceding clause in the same sentence mentions IPv4 space specifically).

4.2.3.3: ...IPv4 addresses are allocated...

4.2.3.6: ...25% of the IPv4 addresses being assigned... and ...request for additional IP addresses space...

4.2.3.7: …use of IPv4 address…

4.2.3.7.3.1: ...80% of their current IPv4 address space...

4.2.3.8: ...IPv4 addresses reassigned by an ISP...

4.3.1: ...blocks of IPv4 addresses...

4.3.3: …assignment of IPv4 address space…

4.3.4: ...qualify for IPv4 address space...

4.3.5: …use private IPv4 address… and …and the private IPv4 address numbers…

4.5: ...request new or additional IPv4 address space ... and ...may not allocate additional IPv4 address space...

Additionally, in the following sections while the term IP addresses is currently omitted, it is implied and non-specific as currently written. As such, the following text changes are proposed (added text in bold):

4.2.2: ...qualify for an initialIPv4 allocation of up to a /21... and ...may qualify for a larger IPv4 allocation...

4.3.2: ...minimumIPv4 assignement for end-user organizations...

Finally, there is an apparent typo in the new 8.3 which refers to "IPv4 numbers resources" which should probably read "IPv4 number resources".

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything else: This is a trivial change which improves the clarity of the NRPM and should be quite simple to implement.

On the typo in 8.3, if the AC or ARIN staff feel it would be better, "IPv4 numbers" would also be acceptable wording, this should be decided before advancing it as an editorial change.

Search Related Content

Loading

full site search