[arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

[Michael Peddemors]

Personally, not sure if we should allow any transfer in a world of 
diminishing resources, use it or loose it..

But I speak definitely in favor of NOT allowing transfers less than /24, 
and since SWIP isn't allowed for /32 right now... (correct?)

I suggest no smaller than a /29

On 14-03-19 11:04 AM, David Huberman wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> If I understand your argument – and I’m not sure I do, sorry – you’re
> saying that it’s good to have a policy that SPs can point to and say,
> “no, you can’t take that /32 we assigned to you with you”?  If that’s
> what you’re arguing, then why is a /24 any different than a /32? We see
> /24s assigned by SPs to their customers all the time.
>
> Secondly, if this is your argument, why is this not a matter for legal
> and contracts, rather than a number registry which is not appointed by
> the IETF or NANOG or any other engineering body as the regulator of what
> size block is acceptable to regulate? I’m not being flippant and I’m not
> trying to be a jerk.  I think this kind of reasoning (and 1000 apologies
> if I misunderstood your argument) is way outside the purview of ARIN.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /david
>
> *David R Huberman*
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>
> *From:*Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00 AM
> *To:* David Huberman
> *Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block
> Size Requirements
>
> I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).
>
> However, IMO having a /32 IPv4 minimum transfer size (no limit) would be
> a bad idea.  There have been several cases where entities who are
> completely ignorant of Internet routing think they have some "right" to
> a particular /32, and wish to transfer it.  IMO, having *some* minimum
> transfer size is a good way to prevent such efforts from being imposed
> on the rest of us.  (If ARIN can point to policy saying "that simply
> isn't allowed", they're in a much better position than trying to argue
> the particulars of each case.)
>
> I would have no problem reducing the minimum IPv4 transfer size, just
> not all the way to /32.  So I oppose the proposal as written, but could
> support a revised version.
>
> -Scott
>



-- 
"Catch the Magic of Linux..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc.
Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic
Remember, the N.A. ISP/Telecom Conference/Cruise Aug 2-9, 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca
"LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada

This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company.