[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-149 Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers

[John Santos]

On Thu, 12 May 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On May 12, 2011, at 1:59 PM, John Santos wrote:
> 
> > Would how org A acquired the prefix in the first place, and whether it
> > was a larger prefix than what it transfered to org B, also be reflected
> > in the list, or is this information already available some place else,
> > such as in whois, and thus redundant?
> > 
> Since the list would include the original prefix and each subordinate
> prefix transfered, yes, that is required under the current wording.
> 
> For example, if A held 192.0.0.0/16 and transferred 192.0.2.0/24
> to B, that should be reflected (at a minimum) as:
> 
> 192.0.0.0/16 partially transferred 5/12/2011 as 192.0.2.0/24
> 
> > I think it is important to include exactly what information is to be
> > maintained in the policy proposal, or we may find out it is not as
> > useful as hoped.
> > 
> Does the above work for you, or, is there more or less information
> that you would like to see?

I think that does it for me.  Would other people like to see an
indication of whether it was originally a legacy (LRSA or not) or
ARIN allocation, and what kind of RSA applies to the recipient (RSA,
LRSA, or modified version of one of them?)  Since the results would
presumably be under some sort of RSA, it doesn't really matter to me,
but other people might find some utility in tracking this for statistical
reasons.

I think the utility of this would be to see how busy the transfer
market is, and how much fragmentation it is creating, which would
then be an indicator of how much attention PPML should be paying to
it.  Also, when IPv4 finally stagnates and dies, this will be
reflected in the churn rate dropping off.  This is of interest to
people who need to know when it's okay to stop devoting resources
to maintaining IPv4 apps and networks and concentrate on IPv6.


> 
> Owen

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539