[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-144 Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer
owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 18:30:56 EDT 2011
On May 2, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:59 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>> ARIN-prop-144 Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer
>>> Proposal Originator: Matthew Kaufman
>>> Modify Section 8.3 as follows:
>>> Change "can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
>>> aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN
>>> policies" to "can demonstrate the need for such resources in the amount
>>> which they can justify under current ARIN policies"
>> Hi Matthew,
>> IIRC, the source of that gobbledygook was that we didn't want folks
>> splitting up aggregates and selling them off piecemeal. Unless we can
>> find consensus on a better way to word that requirement, I would
>> support the offered change.
>> Bill Herrin
> But that's the point I'm making; the aggregates don't exist as such; they've
> _already been_ split up:
> mpetach at pat1.sjc> show route terse 220.127.116.11/8 | grep \* | count
> Count: 46 lines
> mpetach at pat1.sjc> show route terse 18.104.22.168/8 | grep \* | count
> Count: 488 lines
> mpetach at pat1.sjc>
> Almost nobody announces their "pure" aggregate route only; so why would
> we insist that address transfers would have to be done in a more pristine
> manner than that in which the blocks are already being treated?
> Putting it more simply: 22.214.171.124/8 is already split into almost 500 pieces
> in the routing table; allowing those 500 pieces to be transferred to other
> companies has no intrinsic impact on the routing table size.
Last I looked, 500 < 65,536.
More information about the ARIN-PPML