[arin-ppml] Statistics regarding NRPM 8.3 Transfers to date

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon May 2 19:33:45 EDT 2011


On May 2, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 02-May-11 15:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 1, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 01-May-11 11:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> How about this:
>>> 
>>> "The transferor's resources may be recursively bisected the minimum number of times necessary to create one CIDR block equal to the transferee's justified need."
>>> 
>>> So, if someone with a /8 wants to sell you a /20, their /8 would be divided into one /9, one /10, one /11, one /12, one /13, one /14, one /15, one /16, one /17, one /18, one /19 and two /20s, and then you would get one of those /20s.
>> 
>> I believe that would be acceptable, but I would need to know how staff would interpret the language and some assurance that said statement of interpretation would be binding. (Would staff interpretation of the former paragraph match the example in the latter?)
> 
> That, of course, would fall to Mr. Curran to answer, but I can't see any valid alternate interpretation.
> 
Until it came up, I couldn't see valid alternative interpretations to 8.3 as written. Staff has proven
to be rather creative in this regard.

>> How would it perform against the examples I posted a few moments ago?
> 
> 1. Not allowed, because bisecting past /19 would exceed what was necessary to meet Org B's justified need.
> 
> 2. Not allowed, because bisecting past /19 would exceed what was necessary to meet Org B's justified need.
> 
> 3. Allowed.  Since no division is required, the above text does not activate.
> 
> 4. Allowed.  The /20 would be divided into one /21, one /22, one /23, and two /24s.  The two /24s would be transferred to Orgs B and C.  The /23 would be divided into two /24s.  Those two /24s would be transferred to Orgs D and E.
> 
>> (Since we thought we understood how staff would interpret 8.3 at the time and it turned out not to work as we thought).
> 
> You might have; I knew I didn't understand it, but I also knew that getting a possibly-broken policy passed ASAP was necessary to avoid establishing that going around ARIN was the only way to get things done.
> 
I was not so convinced of the latter.

>>> If you agree with that, I'll figure out how to shoehorn it into the existing text of NRPM 8.3, though I'd prefer a complete restructuring.
>> 
>> This intrigues me. Please elaborate on your desired restructuring?
> 
> My main priority would be changing it from one long, complicated block of text into something more structured (subsections, lists, etc.) with shorter, simpler sentences.  The result would almost certainly be longer, but that's the only way to get clarity.
> 
I'd be interested in working with you on doing so if you would like.

>>> I also see several ugly possibilities when the transferor has multiple blocks of different sizes available to sell, but I'd need to see examples of how you'd want those handled before I could address them (no pun intended).  However, assuming that aggregation has inherent value to buyers, sellers will avoid them out of self-interest, so we may not need to put anything into policy.  Is anyone seriously concerned that assumption is wrong?
>> 
>> ...
>> I am very concerned that your assumption about the value of aggregation to buyers is wrong.
> 
> The main value, in my view, comes from the greater likelihood of one's prefix being accepted in the DFZ both today and in the future.  One /20 is obviously more valuable than sixteen /24s.  However, how high could ISPs really raise the bar before their customers screamed about not being able to reach the "entire Internet"?  Is one /19 really more valuable than two /20s?
> 

My concern is that most will perceive that /24s are allowed and there is no benefit to looking
for something shorter than a /24 if they can get /24s for cheap or easily.

Heaven help the internet if we ever get to a point where /24s are no longer accepted. The number
of organizations that would be immediately disenfranchised by such a move would be
devastating.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/3642d7c0/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list