[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 New Draft Document Published (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

Nigel,

> V3 of the policy was explicitly issued to address the main ETNO 
> concern, that is the "need" requirement. If you carefully look at V3 
> you will see that the RIPE NCC now has to apply exactly the same 
> checking and approval process that it does for a "normal" allocation.

This brings 2007-08 closer to ARIN's 2008-2, and in fact "improves" on 
it by not prohibiting disaggregation.  While you very reasonably point 
out that the routing table could explode under such circumstances, 
having such a prohibition along with needs justification can lead to 
perverse impacts where holders of large blocks are only able to unload 
them to large users like ISPs.

Are there additional mechanisms that could be put into play to limit 
that explosion?  For instance, could one cap the deaggregation rate per 
aggregated block to some number per anum?  What work has been done in 
this area.

Regards,

Eliot Lear
Cisco Systems