[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[David Williamson]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 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.

I'm still contemplating the overall impact of the entire proposal, so
this is, at best, a preliminary thought.  *If* ARIN is going to get
into the transfer process, I agree that the tension between
deaggregation and policy is going to be a key problem.

I think the intent of the proposal as Owen has outlined it is a
reasonable compromise, for now.  That is, blocks smaller than the
current minimum limits should not be transferred unless they already
exist as a unique resource record with ARIN at that sub-minimum size.
Additionally, in no case should a block smaller than /24 be
transferred.

At some point, I suspect the /24 limit will get fuzzy, and we'll need
to revisit that.  Then again, I think the existing limits are too
large. :)

I'm not sure that taking a hypothetical /16 and breaking it into
completely deaggregated /22s should be against the transfer rules,
though.  Much as a /16 isn't very useful for most entities, nor is a
/17.

I think I'm broadly in favor of this proposal at this time, but I need
to give it some more thought.

-David