On 4/29/13, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 2013, at 2:46 PM, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:
On 4/29/13 1:03 AM, "Jérôme Nicolle" <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote: specified (based on being singly-homed or multi-homed.) These same criteria now apply to receipt of an address block via transfer, so at regional IPv4 free pool depletion may be _very_ difficult to satisfy.
Huh? Where did that concept come from? There is no slow start criterion in the transfer rule, and a transfer is by definition not an initial allocation or assignment activity, even if the ISP is new, 4.2 is not shown to apply; there is a movement of an existing allocation, assignment, or part of one; between organizations, a movement of resources due to merger or acquisition or due to specified transfer does not create an initial allocation; And the transfer policy both 8.2 and 8.3 are very clear in that the minimum size is /24, and not the standard minimums for allocations with or without multihoming. Would you expect ARIN to ask the ISP to receive their first /24 by specified transfer, to show how they will use a /20 in 3 months too? Should there be any ambiguity, the transfer applicant will certainly demand the straightforward interpretation of the transfer rule, that does not require their first receipt of IPv4 resources to require slow start or holding a /20, prior to receiving their /24 through specified transfer, or their initial /16 or whatever through 8.3 merger & acquisition. Such restrictions would very obviously defeat the intent of 8.3; that resources may be transferred. But since conditions are listed on the recipiient of transfer, any conditions not listed are clearly excluded... -- -JH