[arin-ppml] Your views on ARIN Transfer Policy Proposal 2008-2

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Jul 16 12:45:16 EDT 2008

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> What I ask is for you to consider your own understanding and stance on
> amending our present transfer policy to determine what you really like
> (if anything) about the proposal....What must be 'in' if the proposal is
> to get your support?

Hi Bill,

The policy is pretty clunky, but that's to be expected of the first
attempt. The clunkyness should not dissuade anyone from supporting it.
We can deal with clunkiness incrementally in later proposals. What's
important now is getting -something- on the books.

I oppose this proposal because it appears to act as an enabler for
disaggregation of IP address resources. I would support the proposal
if disaggregation was clearly prohibited in this initial policy and
left as a topic of discussion for later policy proposals on PPML.

I understand why disaggregation is desirable, but understand this: the
RRG is *not* close to solving BGP's scalability problem. Of late we've
taken to discussing "clean slate" approaches, having exhausted the
map-encap possibilities without finding an attractive solution. It
isn't yet clear what exactly will have to change in the protocols in
order to make routing scalable, but it's unlikely that the current
layer-4 protocols will survive intact. This has obvious implications
for the length of time for which BGP as it is now *must* be kept

As individual users, our primary concern is necessarily for ourselves
and our clients. We rely on entities like ARIN to look out for the
common good, and right now that common good means dissuading
disaggregation in every way possible.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list