[arin-ppml] Submitted to ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I'm talking about the coming day when the transfer markets have
> sufficiently exploded the routing table that the DFZ providers are
> having to make route acceptance decisions.

Hi Owen,

That's unrealistic. Assuming the /24 barrier remains in place (and
there's no good reason to assume otherwise) the terminal size of the
IPv4 table will be well under the maximum that can be handled by a
cost-effective router.

The IPv6 policies (failing to standardize on specific prefix sizes
from fixed-prefix blocks) are far more likely to resulting in table
size problems than the IPv4 transfer policy. Without anything to
constrain it, 2^48 is enough more than 2^24 to be a problem for the
hardware.

Nevertheless, your original point is a strong one: Reporting transfers
which disaggregate existing blocks would "provide a valuable tool for
the community and the AC to evaluate the effectiveness and any
negative consequences from the transfer policy."  As a community we're
exploring uncharted territory with for-pay address-only transfers. It
seems like it would be appropriate to study them carefully and in
great detail for the first little while.

For that reason, I SUPPORT your suggestion.

Regards,
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