On Feb 6, 2011, at 1:25 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Last I checked, the other four authors of RFC 2050 are still alive. Why not ask them?
Bill indicated he "was there when it was written" in reference to Jon being an author, and I was inquiring to whether he had any knowledge of Jon's intent that he could share. If you have knowledge of Jon's intent, or any insight on why RFC 2050 includes the existing allocations if the intent was actually to leave it vague with respect to same, that also would be helpful.
Further, RFC 2050 states "The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR."
I'm curious: when HP acquired the assets of Compaq (or when Compaq acquired the assets of Digital), is it your position that HP (or Compaq) "met the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." for 16.0.0.0/8?
The handling of general case varies based on the community developed policy over the years, currently as specified by NRPM 8.2 (M&A Transfer) in https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html. There's a Change Log on the page if you want to track the policy at any given point in time. I can not comment on any specific transfer request, but will note that at one time the M&A transfer policy allowed transfer of all held number resources without justification of need as long as the entire entity was involved, but at this point the policy indicates that: "In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work with the resource holder(s) to return, aggregate, or reclaim resources as appropriate via the processes outlined in current ARIN policy (for example, sections 4.6, 4.7, or 12 of the NRPM)." FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN