[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Tue Mar 11 14:14:30 EDT 2008
- Previous message: [ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- Next message: [ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> So, a few questions to discuss: > > Do you think that the IPv4 Transfer Policy should restrict > deaggregation > of transferred netblocks? Why or why not? > Yes. While in the longer term, loosening or removing such restrictions may prove to be a desirable thing to do, I believe we should see how things work with the restrictions initially and gain some experience with the policy before completely turning things loose. We can always deaggregate later, whereas re-aggregation is virtually impossible. > If so, what restrictions should be placed on deaggregation, and what > types of deaggregation should be allowed to provide supply of smaller > netblocks? > Personally, I think the original restrictions were a good starting point. I think that the compromise offered in the current 8.3.6 is an acceptable compromise, but, I do not feel we should go any further at this time. > Should any restrictions on deaggregation be written into the policy, > or > should ARIN staff be given discretion to adjust the restrictions as > needed to best serve the interests of the community (section 8.3.6)? > I prefer policy-based restrictions with the knowledge that policy can be adjusted later if necessary. However, I do think that the more dynamic ability of ARIN staff to respond to need and permit any needed deaggregation in the best interests of the community is a reasonable compromise which would pose acceptable risk. All of this is, of course, assuming that a transfer policy is a good idea at all. Frankly, the more we look at the various problems and attempts to tweak this policy to balance the various risks, the more convinced I become that it's just a bad idea and we should let IPv4 run its course and move on to IPv6 without creating policies to allow previously unanticipated address transfers. Indeed, people holding excess address space are always welcome to return said address space to ARIN under current policy, and, by many interpretations are actually required to do so. Owen
- Previous message: [ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- Next message: [ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list