[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3

[Frank Bulk]

I support Bill's language, as I believe it supports the original intent and
properly minimizes disaggregation.  

Yes, minimizing disaggregation will make the transfer of IPv4 addresses less
"liquid" than what some might prefer, but it's not an unreasonable measure
to temper routing table growth in light of the also-increasing IPv6 table
growth.

I believe we should allow organizations with documented need greater than
what's exactly available on the market to be allowed to transfer several
smaller (originally registered, non-disaggregated) blocks.  For example, if
an organization needs a /22 and there's only /20's and /24's out there, and
if they can buy three (originally registered) /24's, let them do it.  In the
short term we're going to see more and more examples where filling exact
need is not possible, so getting some is better than none.

Owen gave an example of a where a supplier disaggregates their unused /8
into several /16 chunks.  I would actually like to discourage that behavior
where possible, as that increases the routing table size.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 8:54 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 9:31 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
>
> Such transferred number resources may only be
> received under RSA as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they
> can justify under current ARIN policies by organizations that are within
> the ARIN region.
>
> Rationale:
>
> The above re-ordering of the
> exact same words (modulo a deleted "and") should ensure proper binding
> of the single-aggregate clause as originally intended.


The problem is: that wasn't the original intent.

The original intent was to minimize disaggregation. The language was
never intended to prevent multiple whole blocks from being
transferred. It got butchered by more than a single "and."

If you want to get close to the original intent, try something along
the lines of, "Organizations may transfer multiple address blocks but
no organization shall offer nor shall any organization receive more
than one address block per year where said address block is smaller
than its original registered size."

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.