[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[David Conrad]

Scott,

On Mar 7, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Organization A's IPv4 needs are growing, but their budget is tight.   
> In order to meet this quarter's needs, they transfer a block from  
> org B. Next quarter, they again need new addresses, so they transfer  
> another block from org C.  Before the year is out, they have at  
> least 3 extra routes in the routing table, which can't be  
> aggregated, nor can they be filtered without breaking connectivity.

Sounds plausible.

> Rather, I'd like to require A to get a large enough block up front  
> to meet their needs for 6-12+ months, thereby reducing the amount of  
> deaggregation and the externality effects on the rest of the  
> Internet.  (And if they really can't afford 6 months of space, they  
> can always lease PA space from their ISP or another LIR.)

Assuming they can find it.  You presume there are options available to  
organization A that I'm somewhat skeptical will actually exist.  There  
will always be incentive to minimize the number of number of blocks  
being announced if you have to go out and find those blocks and then  
convince your ISP(s) to actually route them so if folk are having to  
go find address space, they're presumably doing it for a good reason.

I suppose we'll see.

> Can you identify which restrictions are onerous and would force  
> people to go elsewhere?  We just submitted version 1.1 (which should  
> be posted to PPML today), which allows deaggregation of transfered  
> blocks to the level required to ensure adequate supply at smaller  
> block sizes.

Will review and comment, hopefully by Monday, but I would point out  
that people go to the purely black market today so the restrictions  
folks face today would appear to be too onerous.  Adding vast tracts  
of new regulation would seem likely to increase the number of folks  
forced into the black market.

Regards,
-drc