[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 124: Clarification of Section 220.127.116.11
marty at akamai.com
Thu Dec 9 23:02:15 EST 2010
On 12/9/10 10:04 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> To be perfectly clear, I have proposed as a part of PP 124
>> to remove the following from the policy statement in 18.104.22.168:
>> "This reduction does not apply to resources received via section 8.3. An
>> organization receiving a transfer under section 8.3 may continue to request
>> up to a 12-month supply of IP addresses."
>> The effect would be that transfers would also be subject to a three-month
>> window of need.
> IMO this would have a substantial negative effect on the number of
> routes in the IPv4 routing table. The reason for keeping the 8.3
Along with all of the other disaggregation?
> supply at 12 months was because we expect that a large fraction of 8.3
> transfers will result in deaggregation of a larger block into multiple
> smaller blocks.
I'm not sure why anyone is going to want to spend that far into the future
with respect to the cost and lack of visibility into the state of
transition. This is a great way to undermine the STLS.
>If transfer recipients are required to get a new
> transfer every 3 months instead of every 12, we can expect 4 times as
> much demand for deaggregation in such situations.
That would be a guess. You don't know what the cost of addresses will be.
That will directly impact demand. Be careful about being too excited about
markets. They will be necessary, but it won't be something to be happy
about. The cost of an address in a market using STLS will dwarf the costs we
More information about the ARIN-PPML