[arin-ppml] transfer conditions

[John Curran]

On May 7, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

>>  If an Org X has two blocks: a /16 (NETX16) and a /24 (NETX24), & they 
>>  approach ARIN and indicate that they want to transfer a /24 portion 
>>  of NETX16 to Org Y, ARIN should disallow it?  Does that answer change
>>  if NETX24 is in already heavily in use by Org B?  What if NETX24 is 
>>  in use, and it's a part in an embedded system already in the field?
>>  What if NETX24 is in use by another business unit than the one which
>>  holds the NETX16?
>> 
> Ideally:
> 
> Yes... No... No... No.
> 
> Realistically, probably hard to enforce beyond:
> 
> No... No... No... No.

If the goal is prevent excessive deaggregation, perhaps a simpler
constraint could be easier to enforce and still provide much of 
the benefit?  For example, an absolute minimum block size of /24
for transfers wouldn't discourage reutilization of address space,
is unlikely to get in the way of any parties that independently 
make arrangements and then learn of the policies, but certainly
would dramatically reduce the potential for directly transfer 
induced deaggregation.  I have no preference for any particular 
mechanism, but ask that folks consider that many of the parties
appearing before ARIN with transfers will already have selected
the relevant blocks being transferred, and to the extent that 
any policy constraints are simple and easy to understand, it 
is far more likely that transferring parties will be already 
be aware of them and taken them into consideration in their 
efforts.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN