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

[Frank Bulk]

Because the end result is the same I share your concern, but the difference
is that in the first case it was done sub-optimally for no good reason other
than poor planning and in the second it met the goal of the IPv4 transfer
process.  So limiting the first has value.

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew at matthew.at] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 12:30 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: frnkblk at iname.com; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3

<snip>

Back to my original point, the right answer is somewhere between "all 
blocks may be broken up into /24-sized pieces" and "all blocks must not 
be broken up any further than the original ARIN allocation size"... and 
that's the *only* way to prevent table growth, as *who* gets the blocks 
is completely irrelevant for that point.

Org A fulfilling Org B's need for a /22 by giving them 4 disjoint /24s 
is *exactly* as bad for the router memory as Org A fulfilling org B, C, 
D, and Es needs for /24s with 4 disjoint /24s and so if the goal is to 
keep the table smaller, the policy *should not* differentiate between 
these cases.

Matthew Kaufman