[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Sun May 29 18:54:09 EDT 2011
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 22:02, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> 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?
I think this is one of the problems I continue to struggle with
regarding the entire transfer policy. It attempts to try to
accomplish many things. Among those I would include:
* Ensure that any/all such transactions are properly recorded.
* Allow underused numbers to be better used.
* Minimize dis-aggregation
* Allow $DESPERATE_CORP$ to move to the head of the number
queue via the directed transfer policy by paying for that privilege
(to the supplier).
* Prevent $MEGA_CORP$ from buying all available numbers (perhaps
one /24 at a time, infinitum).
I am not entirely sure that the existing policy consensus will
actually do these things well (and while I can conjecture with
the best, until we get deeper into runout/transfers, my crystal ball
is still cloudy).
However, that all said, I think it is important that if the intent
of the consensus is not being implemented (because of vague
or inconsistent language), we should try to *just fix that* now
(and let another policy proposal open all the discussion on
what is the "right"/"best"/"different" policy).
So, I support this proposal moving forward to correct the
implementation to match consensus.
(*) However I also struggle here with the case that why should a supplier
have any additional restrictions to dis-aggregate than would ARIN, if
the same numbers were available to ARIN. I know I have multiple
minds regarding this issue.
More information about the ARIN-PPML