[ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 Aggregation Requests Pr oposal???
Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com
Wed Dec 4 14:17:39 EST 2002
That's so funny! I agree with Bill. I was thinking just the same thing last
night. How much will 2002-5 and 2002-6 really benefit the Registry and the
routing tables? People have pointed out many ways to abuse both of these
policies. And renumbering is a huge pain as we all know.
How much are we really advancing our cause with these two?
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:16 AM
To: 'Barbara Roseman '; ''ppml at arin.net ' '
Subject: RE: [ppml] Wording issues with the 2002-6 Aggregation Requests
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
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
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?
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
At 05:05 PM 12/3/2002 -0600, Bill Darte wrote:
> Good point, but perhaps the remedy is that the initial request is
>audit of efficient use, but subsequent ones are...or...
>Justification is required only when the exchange block is above a
>A list of all space under control of the requester is reviewed upon
>to determine if this is the best aggregation possible (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
/23, and a /20, none of which are contiguous, the could renumber into a
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
non-contiguous space in excess of their actual needs who had the time
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
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
too few numbers of users who are intended to benefit.
More information about the ARIN-PPML