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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 29, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 2:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 29, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:39:23AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> I actually do think that Bill's language might be closer to community intent.
>>>> I was trying to do the minimal surgical language change, but, I would like
>>>> to get feedback from the community as to which language they think is
>>>> preferable.
>>> So an organization with a largely unused legacy /8 would be limited to
>>> one transfer per year?  (Even though, after transferring one /16, they
>>> would be able to, for example, transfer another /16 (i.e. the /16
>>> adjacent to the one they first transferred) without causing any further
>>> deaggregation?)
>>> 
>> No... They would not be limited. The limitation being expressed would
>> be on the recipients, not the supplier. So, for example, an organization
>> that needed a /14 and wanted to get it from the organization with a
>> largely unused legacy /8 would need to get a /14 from them, or take
>> 4 years to transfer it in /16 sized chunks that were not contiguous. What
>> would not be allowed would be to satisfy their need for a /14 by carving
>> up the /18 into  4 separate /16 sized chunks (or an even larger number
>> of even smaller chunks).
> 
> I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. If the problem is dis-aggregation of blocks, why don't we propose a change that limits the dis-aggregation on the supply side?
> 
> Org A getting the even-numbered /24 from a /8 and Org B getting the odd-numbered /24 from a /8 is just as bad as Org 1 - Org 65536 each getting one /24 from a /8.
> 

Which would not be allowed by the proposed policy in either case.

Neither the odd or even /24s from a /8 would be a "single aggregate".

> And in response the the situation above, is your intent that an org that needed a /14 get it as two /15s, one from each of two suppliers? Or must they take a /15 from one and then wait a year for the /15 from the other? I'm arguing strongly against the latter restriction.
> 
> Matthew Kaufman

No... The intent is that an org that needed a /14 could only get it as a /14 from one supplier or if they choose to take a /15, they wait some period
of time (possibly a year) before they could get a /15 from another.

Owen