[ppml] IPv4 address and routing slot markets

[Scott Leibrand]

Kevin Loch wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>   
>> What business does ARIN or APNIC or RIPE have in allowing or disallowing
>> any kind of route announcements? It is not in the charter of ARIN or in
>> the terms of reference of RIPE. Is there a significant number of ISPs
>> who are about to sign some kind of routing treaty?
>>     
>
> What the RIR's could do is limit subdivision of assignments to
> only a certain level when transferring them.   If you had a /16 you
> could only sell it off in chunks of /20 for example.
>   

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.  The exact mechanics 
could work in a number of ways:
an across-the-board minimum allocation size, a maximum deaggregation 
factor (such as 4 bits longer than the current allocation size, as in 
your /16 to /20 example), or more likely some combination of things like 
that.  But IMO the most important factor is that we preserve as much 
top-level aggregation as possible, to preserve the ability to filter 
deaggregates if necessary without losing reachability.

> The current RIR's have the best chance of implementing those kinds
> of restrictions by supporting markets early, but time is running out.
>   

Based on the discussions at ABQ, I think that discussion has now started 
in earnest, and that we should continue it here and see if we can get 
consensus around a possible policy proposal.

-Scott