<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Jimmy Hess <<a href="mailto:mysidia@gmail.com">mysidia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM, John Curran <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank">jcurran@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">2) The issue is that theoretically any organization with multiple blocks could come in and </span><br>
</div>
<div> ask for a single block as large as the sum of all the previously issue blocks. At this time,</div>
<div> given the space that has been issued to date, such a request could be larger than the </div>
<div> entire remaining IPv4 free pool in the worst case, and while we would theoretically get</div>
<div> back the existing blocks as they renumber out of them, that could be a lengthy process </div>
<div> (and would ikely still be significantly smaller than what we issued them)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ok... that makes sense, thank you.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would expect ARIN to refuse the transaction in that case.<br>
</div>
<div>4.6.1 does say rather clearly about aggregation and returns : "<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Transactions should only be accepted under this policy if they are in the interests of the
community"</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;"><br>
</span></div>
<div>Clearly any transaction that could be at any risk of impairing ARIN's ability to allocate addresses in the near future, would not be in the interests of the community. ARIN should choose to decline in that case, or continue to work with the holder
of address resources, to select an alternative not requiring ARIN allocate too large of a block.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I agree in theory, but we tend to approve requests if at all possible, and ARIN cannot readily</div>
<div>predict whether the community would see sudden depletion as "in interest" or not (for example,</div>
<div>it would likely help promote IPv6 adoption, and hence could be seen as "in interest" to some)</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>If the blocks are already short prefixes, or will be too short a prefix, then the aggregation benefit can be outweighed..</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, renumbering such a large block should be very painful for an ISP: I am not sure, under what circumstances a request such as that would actually be likely.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>While renumbering is painful, being able to lay in a very large block and then renumber into it</div>
<div>(while also accommodating growth for the coming years with plenty of breathing room) could</div>
<div>be rather tempting. The difficultly of simply raising this matter on the next Policy Experience </div>
<div>Report (as opposed to the suspension) is that discussion with the policy active increases the </div>
<div>probable risk to the community in the interim.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>