On Jan 21, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Jimmy Hess <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:55 PM, John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 2) The issue is that theoretically any organization with multiple blocks could come in and ask for a single block as large as the sum of all the previously issue blocks. At this time, given the space that has been issued to date, such a request could be larger than the entire remaining IPv4 free pool in the worst case, and while we would theoretically get back the existing blocks as they renumber out of them, that could be a lengthy process (and would ikely still be significantly smaller than what we issued them) Ok... that makes sense, thank you. I would expect ARIN to refuse the transaction in that case. 4.6.1 does say rather clearly about aggregation and returns : "Transactions should only be accepted under this policy if they are in the interests of the community" 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. I agree in theory, but we tend to approve requests if at all possible, and ARIN cannot readily predict whether the community would see sudden depletion as "in interest" or not (for example, it would likely help promote IPv6 adoption, and hence could be seen as "in interest" to some) If the blocks are already short prefixes, or will be too short a prefix, then the aggregation benefit can be outweighed.. 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. While renumbering is painful, being able to lay in a very large block and then renumber into it (while also accommodating growth for the coming years with plenty of breathing room) could be rather tempting. The difficultly of simply raising this matter on the next Policy Experience Report (as opposed to the suspension) is that discussion with the policy active increases the probable risk to the community in the interim. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
