[ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 Aggregation Requests Pr oposal???

[Bill Darte]

To play devil's advocate in this matter......

It seems that there is a tradeoff of goods and evils here.

Of course we could add wording that limits the policy, but we would have to
be able to assess the 'dirtyness' of the space..... e.g. what if only one of
three blocks is dirty?  How dirty is dirty? How would we know/test?

Is it worth more to assume the potential role of 'launderer' for the sake of
route table efficiency than to deal with the hassles of specifying and
investigating dirtiness and limit the efficiency benefits?

Seems to me the answer (as with all things) is, it depends!  I think it
depends upon how many dirty blocks would be returned relative to others and
how costly it might be to do the investigation/assessments.  Also, isn't
there an ultimate benefit to getting blocks laundered, such that they become
usable again and a productive part of the Internet?

Just wondering what you all think.

Bill Darte
AC and Devil's advocate (on only this issue)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:00 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; ppml at arin.net
> Cc: 'Taylor, Stacy'
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 
> Aggregation Requests
> Proposal???
> 
> 
> as long as we don't get to do laundry with this policy.
> 
> I'd like to see there be language that removes the ability
> to exchange blocks because the are "dirty" or blacklisted.
> 
> If the lang is not specifically in there, then people will
> use the loop-hole.
> 
> john brown
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> > Behalf Of Bill Darte
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:01 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Cc: 'Taylor, Stacy'
> > Subject: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 Aggregation 
> > Requests Proposal???
> > 
> > 
> > 2002-6: Aggregation Requests 
> > 
> > Proposed Policy:
> > 
> > As is.....
> > If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or 
> > end-user, relinquishes a group of portable, non-aggregatable 
> > address blocks to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a 
> > block in exchange, /24 or shorter, but no more than the 
> > shortest block that could contain all of the returned blocks. 
> > Exchanged space shall be returned within 12 months. For 
> > example, if an organization relinquished three /24s, they 
> > should be allowed to take either a /24, a /23, or a /22 in 
> > exchange. If all of the previous address blocks were 
> > maintained in the ARIN database without maintenance fees, the 
> > replacement space shall be as well, but if any one of the 
> > returned blocks had associated maintenance fees, then the 
> > replacement block shall also be subject to maintenance fees.
> > 
> > Proposed.....
> > If any organization relinquishes a group of portable, 
> > non-aggregatable address blocks to ARIN, they will receive a 
> > block in exchange.  The block received in exchange shall be 
> > /24 or shorter, but not shorter than need be in order to 
> > contain all of the returned blocks. Exchanged space shall be 
> > returned within 12 months.  If all of the previous address 
> > blocks were maintained in the ARIN database without 
> > maintenance fees, then replacement space will be without fee, 
> > but if any one of the returned blocks had associated 
> > maintenance fees, then the replacement block will also be 
> > subject to maintenance fees appropriate to the replacement 
> > block size.  For example, if an organization relinquished 
> > three /24s, they would eligible to receive a /24, a /23, or a 
> > /22 in exchange.
> > 
> > 
> > This is similar to the 2002-5 wording that Stacy is working 
> > with........ I think the wording in the first sentence can be 
> > shortened in both policies to "any organization" ....does 
> > anyone see a problem with this?
> > 
> > Bill Darte
> > AC 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>