[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Sun Feb 6 19:25:45 EST 2011

On 2/6/2011 6:13 PM, John Curran wrote:
> In the case of the specified transfer policy, the requirement to qualify to
> receive such just as an allocation under current policies doesn't create
> any "regulation" of the routing table, but it does propagate policies which
> were designed with routing impact in mind.  To the extent that the community
> feels that such considerations are unnecessary in policy in general or with
> respect to IPv4 at this point in time, that's a very important discussion
> to have.

That's my point. In practice (because it's the operator community who 
defines actual routing policy) ARIN policy doesn't actually restrict 
table bloat. However, the allocation policies DO take routing bloat into 
consideration. This is generally in the form of restrictions on how 
small a network will be allocated. As a good portion of the operator 
community does advertise the largest aggregates they can, the size 
allocated determines the number of routes each must advertise.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list