<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN
style="WIDOWS: 2; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT: medium Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; ORPHANS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
class=Apple-style-span><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Owen</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgcolor="#ffffff">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="Z-INDEX: auto; POSITION: static; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><EM>Well, that information leads me to
discount the deaggregation argument against removing need
requirements.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><EM>I consider Geoff Huston to be en
expert on BGP tables and defer to his judgement here.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Clearly he did not see the risk of BGP
table growth as a cause to retain needs requirements</FONT><FONT size=2
face=Arial>.</FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><EM>I hope the ARIN community can take away
the idea that it is not just a few IPv4 profiteers who have different
visions of stewardship.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2
face=Arial></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite the
contrary... You should listen to or read Geoff's entire argument before
drawing</DIV>
<DIV>such (IMHO erroneous) conclusions about his statements.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Geoff has recognized that a market will create aggregation concerns in
the BGP tables. However, his</DIV>
<DIV>argument is that these are inevitable and the RIRs refusing to recognize
transfers in whois will not</DIV>
<DIV>reduce them.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously I don't completely agree with him that the number of transfers
taking place will not or can not</DIV>
<DIV>be reduced by RIR policy. Geoff's theory is that all policy can
accomplish is to prevent the transfers</DIV>
<DIV>from being visible in whois. My belief is that most organizations will
choose to play by the rules and</DIV>
<DIV>will not want space that is not visible in whois. Further that most ISPs
(at least the majority of the</DIV>
<DIV>very large ones) will actually consider whois registrations in the
process of deciding what is or is</DIV>
<DIV>not an acceptable prefix to route for a given customer.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Obviously, Geoff and I disagree on this matter. However, we both agree
that transfers are and will</DIV>
<DIV>be detrimental to the BGP table.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Owen</DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>What I wrote is that Geoff does not see the risk
of increased BGP table growth as a cause to retain needs requirements. I think
that is accurate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>