[ppml] Policy 2002-5, different question

[John M. Brown]

Another question:

What does this do to the fragmentation of the RIR's address pool?

I can see from a routing table perspective that we ""MAY"" see
better aggregation of routes, but it seems that the RIR may end up
with a large pile of very fragmented space.


Another question:

Does it make sense to only give smaller re-allocs?

If I have 4 /24's out of various swamp locations, and I wish
to return these non-aggregatable /24's for a /22, why can't
I do that ?

That would seem to help route table growth, but add to RIR
fragmentation.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Taylor, Stacy
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:11 PM
> To: 'dawn.martin at wcom.com'; Taylor, Stacy; 'Trevor Paquette'; 
> ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> (Hi Dawn!)
> 
> We could change the sentence: 
> ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the 
> smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned 
> block, or a block allocated from some different range. 
> 
> to:
> 
> The smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned block.
> 
> Although, does that remove the carrot from the equation?
> 
> Is there a way to inform the blacklists that a block has been 
> returned to the registry and should be removed from the list?
> 
> Stacy
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawn Martin [mailto:dawn.martin at wcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:55 PM
> To: 'Taylor, Stacy'; 'Trevor Paquette'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that returning a larger block of address space 
> for a slightly smaller block is enough reason to accept the 
> exchange. Is there a way for the ARIN staff to ensure that 
> the space is "clean". I don't know of a easy way of doing 
> this, even over time the blocks stay on lists long after the 
> original SPAMer is gone.
> 
> Dawn Martin
> WorldCom IP Planning & Policy Analyst
> dawn.martin at wcom.com
> (703)886-4746
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On 
> Behalf Of Taylor, Stacy
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:04 PM
> To: 'Trevor Paquette'; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> The block an organization would exchange would be for a 
> smaller block only. The goal is for organizations to turn in 
> space they are already not using, or could free up by consolidation.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Paquette [mailto:Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> 
> 
> much better reading...
> 
> could this policy possibly be used to exchange blocks?
> 
> meaning.. get one of the SAME size because the original is 
> getting 'dirty' (blocked by blacklist etc?). I hope that the 
> wording "shall receive a smaller block", really means a 
> SMALLER block; not one of the same size.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of 
> > Taylor, Stacy
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:14 PM
> > To: 'ppml at arin.net'
> > Subject: [ppml] Policy 2002-5
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings All,
> > 
> > To make good on my campaign promise to make our policies
> > comply with the
> > standards of the English language, I have altered policy 
> > 2002-5.  How do you
> > like this?
> > 
> > 
> > If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or 
> end-user, 
> > relinquishes a larger block of portable address space to ARIN, they 
> > shall be
> > allowed to receive a smaller block, /24 or shorter, in 
> exchange.   The
> > organization will not be required to justify their use of the
> > new, smaller
> > block.  The organization must return the block to be 
> > exchanged within 12
> > months.  ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine 
> whether the
> > smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned 
> > block, or a
> > block allocated from some different range. 
> > If any of the relinquished blocks had associated maintenance 
> > fees, then the
> > new block will be subject to the appropriate fees for that 
> block size.
> > Likewise those without maintenance fees shall remain so.
> > 
> > 
> > I am also interested in continuing the discussion on the
> > relative merits of
> > this policy.
> > 
> > Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!
> > Stacy
> > 
>