[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy

[Owen DeLong]

> Yes, in any exhaustion scenario, deaggregation pressures *on  
> existing space* will increase somewhat: as far as I can tell that's  
> inevitable. However, I'm not convinced that the rate of increase in  
> the routing table will necessarily increase.  Currently we are  
> "deaggregating" the free pool into one route per growing multihomed  
> organization per year. If we instead deaggregate deployed space to  
> meet the same demand, and apply restrictions as in 2008-2, I'm not  
> convinced we'd see any more deaggregation than is the inevitable  
> result of more networks joining the Internet (and that's a good  
> thing).
>
> Do you have reason to believe that deaggregation pressures will be  
> larger under 2008-2 than under a no-transfers exhaustion scenario,  
> where incumbents with space lease/SWIP it to downstreams needing the  
> space?
>
Yes... I think that the market will lead to a larger number of  
organizations
multihoming in order to qualify for the ability to transfer space in  
because
their ISP is out and they can't get space any other way.

> As Randy has pointed out, most of the deaggregates in the current  
> table are more-specifics of RIR-allocated routes.  Under a no- 
> transfer or 2008-2-type policy, I would expect that to remain the  
> case, at least unless/until routing table growth starts to outstrip  
> router capacity growth.
>
Yes.  I don't see that as a bad thing. That form of growth is somewhat
manageable and when those more specifics get filtered remotely,
little or no damage occurs.  This is not so of fractions of address
space that no longer have any affiliation with a larger aggregate.
Especially in scenarios where someone is still announcing said
larger aggregate and may not be carrying the more specific.

Owen