[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 12:14:29AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Quite frankly, if you sell a /19, you really don't have to announce
> the /17, /18, and /19. You could just continue to announce the /16
> knowing that the recipient's /19 would override your /16
Would, say, your employer go along with that? If I have a /16 and sell
a /19 from it, I'll end up with a /17, /18, and /19 in ARIN's records.
If I then seek service from HE, and tell them I want to announce the
/16, will they allow it even though there's no record of that /16
being allocated to me?
What would the standard be? A customer can announce it if they provide
documentation that they once held the /16 and still hold part of it?
Or would you allow anyone to announce a /16 if any part of it were
assigned to them in whois? If two or more portions of it were assigned
to them in whois? If more than half of it were assigned to them?
(Obviosuly, each provider gets to make their own decision here. I'm
just wondering what you'd suggest their policies should be.)
Certainly I agree that what you propose would work, but it would seem
cumbersome to implement in practice, especially for any orgnaization
seeking service from a new upstream after the sale had occurred.
And, of course, it all falls apart under RPKI.
> There is little or no benefit to you announcing the /17, /18, and /19
> instead of the /16.
As long as the other /19 is continuously announced. One downside of
announcing the /16 is you get traffic for the /19 you sold whenever
that /19 isn't being announced by its new holder.