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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 29, 2011, at 7:14 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:

> 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".  
> 

You are correct. I missed that in the original and would probably remove
it from what I actually would include in the policy.

> 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?
> 
What I would think makes more sense as policy would be:

Organizations may transfer multiple address blocks but
no organization shall receive more than one address block
per year where said address block is smaller
than its original registered size.

I believe that accomplishes the intent without undue restrictions on the
suppliers.

> 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.
> 
Either case meant Bill's or my original language.

> 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.
> 
No, the point is that you can carve up to numerous different organizations
(see modification above), but, cannot carve up into numerous different
chunks to the same recipient.

> Right after stating, in response to me (see above) that it would not be
> limited.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 

You didn't miss anything. I misread Bill's language the first time through
and your diligence caused me to re-examine it and propose a corrected
version above. Does that seem to do what you think is right?

Owen

>> 
>>>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110529/a06aa3b1/attachment.htm>