[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

[Jack Bates]

I still believe ISP->ISP is appropriate, but I do believe that the 
policy should perhaps add the justification for being an ISP (ie, method 
of ARIN validating that an ISP is receiving the appropriate space). The 
common methods as I mentioned on ppml are to show corporate documents 
(as is done with ARIN when first getting an ORG-ID; and is designed to 
try and keep an entity from cloning itself and having space assigned to 
multiple org-ids from different entities) and/or contract copies as we 
do in proving multihoming for ASN.

I'm not sure how much of this is policy worthy and how much is 
implementation specific.

Also, I'm not sure that nibble assignments are necessary or appropriate 
for ISP -> ISP transactions? Contiguous space is important within the 
scope of a single ISP, but subtending ISPs (especially when multihomed) 
don't require this (if they went to ARIN, they wouldn't be contiguous 
with their upstream, so assigning a /32 do a downstream's downstream ISP 
wouldn't need to be contiguous). I'm also not sure on nibble allocation 
sizes in this type of scenario; though not completely against it.


Jack

On 12/9/2010 10:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Either the policy is good stewardship of the address space or it is not. If
> it is not good policy, then, we should change the ARIN policy. If it is good
> policy, then the ISP should be able to make the reallocation if that is
> where the other ISP prefers to get their space.