I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).
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.) 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. -Scott On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:27 AM, David Huberman < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > /david > > David R Huberman > Microsoft Corporation > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:18 AM > To: ARIN-PPML List > Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size > Requirements > > 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. > > 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. > > Thank you, > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
