[arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I believe the thread in question starts with this email;
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/023235.html

> However, do you believe this is something we should be working on?
> If so, then is this text useful to start working with?

Hi David,

What does Richard Steenbergen think? If he continues to see this as an
issue worth addressing, I'd roll with it for a while and see what sort
of response there is to docketed draft policy text.

Reading Richard's note, I think he's saying: the MDN policy would work
better and be more useful if ARIN simply accepts a registrant's
determination that a particular set of networks should be constructed
discretely from each other as opposed to ARIN determining whether the
need to do so is "compelling."

So, game it. Two identical sets of, let's say ten discrete networks as
discrete networks are defined. In one set ARIN assigns 10 distinct
address blocks based on the registrant's determination that the
networks are discrete. For the other set, ARIN determines there is no
compelling need and assigns a single address block for the registrant
to split among them as desired. In both cases we assume that no fraud
has occurred: the networks are in fact distinct.

Questions:

Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?

Are there any parameters for the game in which the registrant gets too
few addresses via the single block method, requiring him to redesign
his networks to no longer be distinct?

Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
to introduce more routes?

That's where I'd start looking to try to figure out whether this was a
real problem worth addressing, whether the protection being removed
had an important impact and what shape an alternate protection might
take in order to solve the problem. The answers would lead to more
questions and I'd follow them until I ran out of ideas.


I don't imagine this will have much of an impact on IPv4 one way or
another simply because v4 depletion moots the issue. However, we carry
this problem with us to IPv6 so if a game reveals substantive problem
scenarios then it's probably worth fixing.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004