[arin-ppml] Transfer policy impact on routing aggregation

[John Curran]

On Apr 30, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Again, I disagree. The intent of this phrase was to reduce the amount of disaggregation of the routing
> table that will be caused by transfers. Allowing this revolving door use of the transfer policy will
> increase disaggregation.
> 
> Even without it, I expect transfers to have a devastating affect on our continued ability to route IPv4
> in the relatively near future, but, perhaps I shouldn't object as I think the only natural outcome of that
> will be a sudden and dramatic shift to IPv6 which I guess is good for me. However, I try to keep the
> best interests of the community in mind and I think that would be traumatic on the community level.

Owen - 
 
  Could you elaborate on the underlying cause of disaggregation
  that you foresee?  I have heard folks suggest that no direct
  controls on disaggregation will result in parties breaking up
  address blocks to deal in them "retail", i.e. Org A will only
  transfer to Org B at a /22 at a time, because they hope that 
  4 x $(/22) is greater than $(/20), and so Org B may not get
  adjacent /22's over the course of time. The other concern that 
  has been raised is that (at some point) the inability to get
  reasonable blocks of unique address space to connect a new 
  customer will result in both ISPs and customers mining smaller 
  and smaller blocks (e.g. /28 - /32) to get the job done.

  I think discussing this in more detail would help folks with
  understanding various options for controlling the specified
  transfer policy effects on route aggregation.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN