[arin-ppml] transfer conditions

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Sun May 8 00:04:24 EDT 2011

On May 7, 2011, at 5:20 PM, John Curran wrote:

> On May 7, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On May 7, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> If the goal is prevent excessive deaggregation, perhaps a simpler
>>> constraint could be easier to enforce and still provide much of
>>> the benefit?  For example, an absolute minimum block size of /24
>>> for transfers wouldn't discourage reutilization of address space,
>> Perhaps it's not necessary.  Are holders of IPs going to seek to transfer
>> longer prefixes  than /24;  knowing full and well,  many providers are
>> going to filter/discard any announcements for /25 and longer prefixes?
> Many of holders of IP addresses (as well as those who will be attempting
> to broker same) have no idea about provider routing or filtering, and if
> they can find parties willing to accept /30's, then they will break down
> blocks accordingly in the absence of clear guidance to the contrary.
> My only point is that to the extent that the policies are straightforward, 
> the more easily they are propagated and the higher probably of them being 
> followed in advance.  

Why don't we just start by disallowing all transfers smaller than, say, /19... and then adjusting that downward (in block size... upward in mask length) as the market shows that it can't function with the simultaneous combination of needs-justification-requirements and minimum-block/aggregate-sizes?

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list