[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

William Herrin arin-contact at dirtside.com
Tue Mar 11 15:24:20 EDT 2008

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:
>  Do you think that the IPv4 Transfer Policy should restrict deaggregation
>  of transferred netblocks?  Why or why not?


Yes, the policy should restrict deaggregation.

Why? Allow me to spin a hypothetical scenario:

ScottNet, an ISP serving the eastern seaboard, goes bankrupt and the
pieces get auctioned off by the court. The customer base is sold by
locality to a dozen distinct ISPs who agree to honor some portion of
the remaining contracts in order to gain the customers.

ScottNet held 3 /12's. In its infinite wisdom, it allocated /24's to
its individual POPs as needed and then assigned customer prefixes out
of those /24's.

Without a restriction on deaggregation, the /24's assigned to each POP
are transferred to the purchasing ISP for that POP. Those ISPs
aggregate where possible but mostly have to announce the individual

The net impact of ScottNet's dissolution is that as many as 12,000
prefixes are added to the DFZ RIB and FIB at a systemic cost that
could exceed $74M/year (http://bill.herrin.us/network/bgpcost.html).

I think we can all agree that would be an unfortunate outcome.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> And while you are answering these questions, or just browsing, please
>  state plainly whether you are 'in favor' of this policy proposal, or
>  'opposed'.

Opposed at this point, but I do agree that an address market is
inevitable and ARIN should act to regulate it intelligently. You're
asking good questions and working towards a policy I could support.

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