<div dir="ltr">I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).<div><br></div><div>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.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>-Scott</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM, David Huberman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com" target="_blank">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
As the author, I proposed this policy because it is not ARIN's role to artificially regulate minimum block sizes. I feel this is especially in a post-exhaustion world, which is very quickly coming.<br>
<br>
The economics of routing are the same today as they were 14 years ago when Bill Manning taught me an important principal: people will pay to route whatever you pay them to route. Moreover, there is no technical reason I can think of to require a /24 as the minimum TRANSFERRABLE size. If two parties wish to exchange smaller prefixes, I cannot see a technical motivation for ARIN policy to prohibit such a transaction.<br>
<br>
I ask you to support this policy on principle, or educate us why removing the minimum transferrable block size is harmful to the technical operations of the internet.<br>
<br>
/david<br>
<br>
David R Huberman<br>
Microsoft Corporation<br>
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong<br>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:18 AM<br>
To: ARIN-PPML List<br>
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements<br>
<br>
There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to have more input from a broader cross-section of the community.<br>
<br>
At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this proposal for lack of support by the community. If you support this action, please speak up. If you support this proposal, then it is vital that you speak up.<br>
<br>
Thank you,<br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>