[ppml] IPv4 address and routing slot markets

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Sat Oct 27 13:27:13 EDT 2007

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> However, if we go ahead and allow full 
>> deaggregation down to /24, as Geoff's proposal in APNIC would 
>> do, then we lose the ability to filter such routes without 
>> losing reachability.
> Allow?
> 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?
I'm not referring to "allowing" announcement of more-specifics out of a 
larger aggregate.  Geoff's proposal would allow you to break up and 
transfer (in APNIC's database) individual /24's, basically turning all 
of APNIC's space into a larger class C swamp.  That is a problem because 
you can't filter such routes without losing reachability, whereas if 
someone advertises a more-specific /24 out of a /22 or larger aggregate 
for TE purposes (as we see today), that more-specific need not be 
accepted by every network on the Internet.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list