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

[John M. Brown]

So how many times does one get to return blocks ??

If I return 12 /24's now, and get new ones, and then
a year later return those for new ones, rinse, lather,
repeat.

What does the RIR do when they issue those returned blocks
to someone else and they have problems using them ???


How do you launder them??  Who is inspector 12 ??

I believe the BoT wants to see the AC have crisp and
clear policies.  As currently worded I believe a certain
amount of crispness is lacking and that can be used for
abuse.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Cc: 'John M. Brown'
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 
> Aggregation Requests Proposal???
> 
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>