[arin-ppml] Transfer policy impact on routing aggregation

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sat Apr 30 12:20:21 EDT 2011

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.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list