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

[Bill Darte]

Barbara,

Proposed..... (Bill Darte rewording)
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.

Is the "non-aggregatable" reference above (and in the original wording) not
explicit enough? 

How few are we talking about?  Are there not hundreds of non-contiguous
blocks under a single authority out there now?  What value to those with
such assignments accrues to their use of this policy?  If none, then why
would anyone undergo renumbering nuisance?....except for being a good
netizen?

I am ambivelent about creating policies that won't be used in order to
express ARIN's, and presumably, the industry's interest in paring the route
table and 'potential' for more efficient allocation practice....

Are there other benefits like laundering?

Bill Darte
AC

-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Roseman
To: Bill Darte; 'Ron da Silva '; 'ppml at arin.net '
Sent: 12/3/02 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 Aggregation Requests Pr
oposal???

At 05:05 PM 12/3/2002 -0600, Bill Darte wrote:
>  Good point, but perhaps the remedy is that the initial request is
without
>audit of efficient use, but subsequent ones are...or...
>
>Justification is required only when the exchange block is above a
certain
>size....or......
>
>A list of all space under control of the requester is reviewed upon
request
>to determine if this is the best aggregation possible (or
>acceptable)...or...

The original intent of the proposal (as I understood it) was to allow 
companies with non-aggregateable blocks of IPs to turn those in for an 
equal or smaller aggregate block of IPs. So, if a company has a /24, and
a 
/23, and a /20, none of which are contiguous, the could renumber into a
/19 
or longer prefix. As written, it was intended to serve the needs of a 
fairly small segment of the IP community: those who found themselves
with 
non-contiguous space in excess of their actual needs who had the time
and 
resources to renumber into contiguous space.

Would it make sense to be explicit about the non-contiguous, 
non-aggregatable  nature of the blocks being exchanged? This would
entail 
some kind of audit of IP space available to the user.

Or, as Bill asks, is this too much trouble to establish as a policy for
the 
too few numbers of users who are intended to benefit.

-Barb