[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
matthew at matthew.at
Sun May 29 18:02:34 EDT 2011
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
>> 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
> 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.
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML