[arin-ppml] Suggested update to PP 157

[Joe St Sauver]

Martin commented:

#Policy statement:  Number resources within the ARIN region may be
#released to ARIN by an authorized resource holder for transfer to a
#specified recipient who qualifies for resources under current ARIN
#policy.
#
#Rationale:
#
#The original text was overly complex and imprecise. The modified
#language has been reduced to be clear with respect to allowing
#specified transfers of "number resources". The definition of "number
#resources" is any IPv4 address or addresses, IPV6 address or addresses
#or a 2 byte or 4 byte ASN individually or collectively.
#
#The edits that I'm suggesting match almost verbatim comments and
#suggestions from the staff C/U.

Couple of points of clarification:

1) Are Resources Transferable "En Bloc" Only, or Divisibly? That is,
would your proposed policy statement allow a current resource holder
to voluntarily deaggregate a currently held resource as part of the 
transfer process, or would resources only be able to be transferedable 
as a single non-deaggregable entity?

For example, if the resource holder currently has an IPv4 /19, would 
the current resource holder be able to deaggregate that /19 into 
multiple smaller netblocks, perhaps with some part of the block
retained for their own use, and the remainder of the block potentially
further subdivided to enable targeted transfers to different specified 
recipients? For example, could the /19 be broken up into /24s, with
each /24 hypothetically going to a different targeted recipient?

Would there be any limit to how small the deaggregated chunks might 
get? 

2) What About Considerations Related to Growth in the Routing Table?

Under the proposed policy, would there be any requirement that multiple 
netblocks going to the same targeted recipient be contiguous/aggregable
if at all possible?

Or could someone (perhaps an SEO person) specifically ask for, and 
receive, intentionally disjoint/non-contiguous blocks from a single 
deaggregated larger block?

3) Is Address Space Fungible, Or Is A Designated Transfer For A Specific
Asset, And ONLY For That Asset, Under Your Policy?

Under the proposed policy, could ARIN substitute a block of the same 
size from address inventory it currently holds, if doing so would 
facilitate the recipient having a single aggregable block rather than 
two non-contiguous/non-aggregable blocks? 

Or are some netblocks special/non-fungible, either more or less valuable
than others?

Thanks for clarification on these three key points as they relate to your
policy statement.

Regards,

Joe St Sauver

Disclaimer: all opinions/questions purely my own.