<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 2, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 02-May-11 15:41, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D22ACF3B-82FA-4B73-85C0-1CFE3E3E8296@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<div>On May 1, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 01-May-11 11:05, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">While I would be fine with ARIN
fulfilling your request with 2 /24s that were already
disjoint, however, I don't want to see someone with, say,
44/8 find a buyer that needs a /20 and sell them
44.0.5/24, 44.0.8/24, 44.15.23/24, 44.28.6/24, etc.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
How about this:<br>
<br>
"The transferor's resources may be recursively bisected the
minimum number of times necessary to create one CIDR block
equal to the transferee's justified need."<br>
<br>
So, if someone with a /8 wants to sell you a /20, their /8
would be divided into one /9, one /10, one /11, one /12, one
/13, one /14, one /15, one /16, one /17, one /18, one /19
and two /20s, and then you would get one of those /20s.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I believe that would be acceptable, but I would need to know how
staff would interpret the language and some assurance that said
statement of interpretation would be binding. (Would staff
interpretation of the former paragraph match the example in the
latter?)</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That, of course, would fall to Mr. Curran to answer, but I can't see
any valid alternate interpretation.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>Until it came up, I couldn't see valid alternative interpretations to 8.3 as written. Staff has proven</div><div>to be rather creative in this regard.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:D22ACF3B-82FA-4B73-85C0-1CFE3E3E8296@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>How would it perform against the examples I posted a few
moments ago?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
1. Not allowed, because bisecting past /19 would exceed what was
necessary to meet Org B's justified need.<br>
<br>
2. Not allowed, because bisecting past /19 would exceed what was
necessary to meet Org B's justified need.<br>
<br>
3. Allowed. Since no division is required, the above text does not
activate.<br>
<br>
4. Allowed. The /20 would be divided into one /21, one /22, one
/23, and two /24s. The two /24s would be transferred to Orgs B and
C. The /23 would be divided into two /24s. Those two /24s would be
transferred to Orgs D and E.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D22ACF3B-82FA-4B73-85C0-1CFE3E3E8296@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>(Since we thought we understood how staff would interpret 8.3
at the time and it turned out not to work as we thought).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You might have; I knew I didn't understand it, but I also knew that
getting a possibly-broken policy passed ASAP was necessary to avoid
establishing that going around ARIN was the only way to get things
done.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>I was not so convinced of the latter.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:D22ACF3B-82FA-4B73-85C0-1CFE3E3E8296@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>If you agree with that, I'll figure out how to shoehorn
it into the existing text of NRPM 8.3, though I'd prefer a
complete restructuring.<font class="Apple-style-span"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144fae"><br>
</font></font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This intrigues me. Please elaborate on your desired
restructuring?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
My main priority would be changing it from one long, complicated
block of text into something more structured (subsections, lists,
etc.) with shorter, simpler sentences. The result would almost
certainly be longer, but that's the only way to get clarity.<br>
<br></div></blockquote>I'd be interested in working with you on doing so if you would like.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote cite="mid:D22ACF3B-82FA-4B73-85C0-1CFE3E3E8296@delong.com" type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>I also see several ugly possibilities when the transferor
has multiple blocks of different sizes available to sell,
but I'd need to see examples of how you'd want those handled
before I could address them (no pun intended). However,
assuming that aggregation has inherent value to buyers,
sellers will avoid them out of self-interest, so we may not
need to put anything into policy. Is anyone seriously
concerned that assumption is wrong?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
...<br>
<div>I am very concerned that your assumption about the value of
aggregation to buyers is wrong.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The main value, in my view, comes from the greater likelihood of
one's prefix being accepted in the DFZ both today and in the
future. One /20 is obviously more valuable than sixteen /24s.
However, how high could ISPs really raise the bar before their
customers screamed about not being able to reach the "entire
Internet"? Is one /19 really more valuable than two /20s?<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>My concern is that most will perceive that /24s are allowed and there is no benefit to looking</div><div>for something shorter than a /24 if they can get /24s for cheap or easily.</div><div><br></div><div>Heaven help the internet if we ever get to a point where /24s are no longer accepted. The number</div><div>of organizations that would be immediately disenfranchised by such a move would be</div><div>devastating.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>