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

[Sweeting, John]

I tend to agree with you Barbara; this policy seems targeted to a very small
segment of the community. I do not understand why the requested address
space would not have to be justified, what is gained by waiving the
justification?



-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Roseman [mailto:broseman at ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 6:26 PM
To: Bill Darte; 'Ron da Silva '; 'ppml at arin.net '
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