[arin-ppml] Q1 - ARIN address transfer policy

[Scott Leibrand]

Owen DeLong wrote:

>> 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.

What about the case where ISPs are the ones that acquire the address 
space via transfer?  Do you believe that something about a transfer 
market will change current practice?

Today, large holders (ISPs) get most of the address space from ARIN, and 
reassign it to their downstreams.  This has several benefits, most of 
them related to economies of scale (fewer interactions with ARIN, staff 
who get more knowledgeable in IP issues since they deal with it all the 
time, etc.).  In a post-exhaustion transfer market, it would seem that 
all those advantages would remain, and in addition large holders would 
be in a better position to acquire space on the transfer market, since 
they would be more knowledgeable about price trends, etc.  So I would 
think that the only real change to your average small organization would 
be that after exhaustion some ISPs will begin charging slightly more for 
Internet service to folks who need a large number of public IPs.

>> 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.

Agreed.

-Scott