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

[Bill Darte]

In the first place, you would not be able to return 12 a second time,
because you would return the original 12 for a single aggregated block which
would no longer fit the criteria of the policy...no?

Second, ...current policy I believe (stated by Richard earlier) is that
blocks are not reissued for a year........ is that sufficient time?  Why not
longer if need be?

I agree with the BoT that policies should be crisp and clear.  I would be
happy for you to suggest a 'crisper' wording.

Also, are you suggesting that the policy is better off dropped than run the
risk of laundering as worded, or do you believe the policy is a good one as
long as we can create wording (and process) that eliminates organizations
from returning dirty blocks?

Bill Darte
AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 
> Aggregation Requests
> Proposal???
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>