[arin-ppml] Statistics regarding NRPM 8.3 Transfers to date
owen at delong.com
Sun May 1 12:05:36 EDT 2011
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 30, 2011, at 17:13, Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 30-Apr-11 10:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> And then once you've justified 980 addresses to ARIN, you should clearly be able to use 8.3 transfers twice in a row, for two separate /23s... it wouldn't make much sense for ARIN to require you to resubmit all the justification paperwork you just sent them a few hours ago, would it?
>> 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.
> Imagine you qualify to receive a /23 but there are no /23s available on
> the market. AIUI, the policy's intent was to prohibit you buying half
> of someone else's /22. However, is there any harm in ARIN fulfilling
> your request with my two disjoint /24s in that scenario? Keep in mind
> you could get my /24s (or one from me and one from someone else) anyway
> via two separate transfer requests.
No, that intent went out the window early in the debate. It was replaced with
an intent to prevent you from creating a /18 equivalent out of disparate /24 sized
chunks of someone else's /8.
> This interpretation, which could be creatively read into the policy
> text, could easily explain the statistics recently posted and, IMHO,
> doesn't violate the policy's intent or goals.
While I would be fine with ARIN fulfilling your request with 2 /24s that were already
disjoint, however, I don't want to see someone with, say, 44/8 find a buyer that needs
a /20 and sell them 44.0.5/24, 44.0.8/24, 44.15.23/24, 44.28.6/24, etc.
More information about the ARIN-PPML