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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue May 31 13:03:50 EDT 2011

On May 31, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 5/30/2011 9:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> If they can find two /15s that started out as /15s, then there's no problem. The issue comes if they, for example,
>> find someone with a /8 and want to get two disparate /15s from within that /8. The intent here is to require
>> the /8 holder to renumber enough to make a contiguous /14 available rather than transferring two disparate
>> /15s and disaggregating them.
> So write the policy so that the /8 holder can't break up their /8 more than you think is acceptable.

The definition of what is acceptable is context-sensitive. If the holder of the /8 finds 16 organizations that
each need a /24, I don't have a problem with that. What I don't want is for a holder of a /8 that finds
an organization that needs a /20 selling them 16 disjoint /24s to meet that need.

> I can see all sorts of complications with trying to do it any other way... if Org A splits their /8 into a bunch of /24s and Org B gets one of them and Org C gets one of them (not contiguous /24s), what happens when Org B and Org C merge? What about when Org C goes bankrupt and Org B is one of the bidders for their space?

Merger: The same thing that happens now with RIR-issued /24s. the combined Org B+C continues to advertise both /24s.

Bankruptcy: Depends on the timing. If it is within 1 year of Org B having received some other
sub-block, then, Org B is an ineligible bidder.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list