[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

[Jimmy Hess]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:26 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-195
> Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements" as a Draft
> Policy.
>

I oppose prop 195 as written,  because  (1) it is unnecessary.

(2) This is yet another IPv4-focused policy.   At this point, ARIN should
be essentially looking at IPv6 policies policies only,  and not make
changes that could adversly further affect IPv4 runout in problematic ways.

(3) Free pools are not yet exhausted,  so interest in 8.3 transfers cannot
yet be regarded or observed in any terms ---  let alone to show that
 "available /24s and longer" are inadequate,

(4) IPv6 is likely to be adopted more heavily,  obviating the usefulness of
any attempts to increase the number of  resource transfers occuring.

(5) Prefixes of /24 and larger will most likely be available over specified
transfer,
and  (4)  Allowing attempts to fragment /24s in IPv4  do not significantly
delay exhaustion of IPv4, but instead is a potential source of a great deal
of pain.

(6)
 Disagree with   "allowing networks to move blocks around as they see fit".
   The manner "in which some networks see fit"  is not necessarily a good
thing  for the level of global routing table bloat.

(7)
A problem is:  as long as routes for these prefixes would hypothetically be
accepted,
the networks who "see fit to move smaller blocks around and fragment /24s
into small chunks  to sell off IP by IP"  are not bearing the cost of their
actions ---  other ARIN members would be  essentially  forced  to bear
costs.

Ultimately resulting in greater unpredictability, whether a prefix received
by allocation or transfer could successfully be routed globally.

Lack of a minimum would potentially see some networks splitting off large
numbers of "surplus"  /25 or /26 prefixes,   and  some small networks
accreting 3 or 4  of these  transfer blocks over a small timeframe,  rather
than a slightly higher costing /24;   thereby, increasing global routing
table fragmentation.

(8)
And I would say that at this point, the /24  minimum is not an arbitrary
minimum.
By de-facto standard,  no longer prefix is permissible  to be announced.



>
> Policy statement:
> Remove all instances in 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 which set a minimum transfer
> size of a /24.
>
-- 
-JH
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140207/c62f5241/attachment.htm>