[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

I think you went right to the part of the proposal that's been one
of the hardest for the AC to craft.  Indeed, there are some discussions
going on inside the AC we might have liked to finish before the
proposal deadline, but it did not work that way.

There are several competing forces under the general umbrella of
prefix length size.  In no particular order:

- Preventing massive deaggregation.  We would like to prevent a /8 from
  showing up in the routing table as 65536 /24's.

- Allowing deaggregation.  A /8 is not a desireable element on its own,
  as few would pass the requirements to justify need, and we may have
  the problem of few being able to afford it.

- What role does existing ARIN criteria play?  Should we allow
  deaggregation simply to ARIN's current limits?

- What rules are applied to blocks that no longer meet current policy?
  There were /24's given out in the past, but you can't get one today.

- If we limit the amount of deaggregation does that limit the liquidity
  of the market?

Rather than nitpick the language of the current proposal I think
the AC would find it more useful if the community could articulate
how they want it to work.  We have just under 30 more days to adjust
the language before the Denver meeting.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080211/501d8218/attachment.sig>