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

[Brett Frankenberger]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 02:43:11PM -0700, 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).

Now I'm confused . The language below says "No organization shall
offer ... more than one address block per year where said address block
is smaller than its original registered size".  

So Organization A with a lightly used /8 offers a /16 to Organization B
(which has justified it's need for a /16) and the transfer is
completed.  The transferred /16 is smaller than the original registered
size (the /8), of course.

Now Organization A wants to transfer another /16 from the same /8 to
Organization C (which has justified need for a /16).  That /16, of
course, is smaller than the originally registered /8 from which it
came.  How is that transfer going to be allowed (assuming less than one
year has elapsed) -- they're offering a second address block that is
smaller than its originally registered size?

Moreover, in subsequent posts, Matthew Kaufman asked:
   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.
and you replied:
   Which would not be allowed by the proposed policy in either case.

So assuming "the proposed policy" means Bill's language (which I've
left below), you seem to now be saying that an Org with a legacy /8
can't carve it up into numerous blocks and transfer one block each to
each of several different organizations.

Right after stating, in response to me (see above) that it would not be
limited.

What am I missing?

> 
> >> On May 29, 2011, at 6:53 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 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."

     -- Brett