From memsvcs at arin.net Wed May 2 09:35:35 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:35:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Last Call for Comment on New IPv6 Policy Message-ID: Following discussion at the April ARIN Public Policy meetings, the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Committee was modified slightly. Please see the announcement of this discussion and read the current recommended policy, based on the consensus of those attending the meeting: http://www.arin.net/announcements/ipv6_wg2.html You have ten (10) working days, or until 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001, to comment on the IPv6 Working group mailing list. Please see the above announcement for instructions on how to subscribe to v6wg at arin.net. The Advisory Council will consider all comments before making their recommendation to the Board of Trustees. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services ARIN From memsvcs at arin.net Wed May 2 15:40:39 2001 From: memsvcs at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Named-based Web Hosting Policy: Last Call for Comments Message-ID: Pursuant to ARIN's recently adopted policy evaluation process, this is the last call for comments on the ARIN Advisory Council's policy recommendation regarding Name-based Web Hosting. The announcement posted today on the ARIN website refers back to an April 16 posting to the Public Policy and Virtual Web hosting mailing lists: http://www.arin.net/announcements/last_call_name_based_hosting.html All comments should be sent to the vwp mailing list. This last call for comments expires at 1700 Eastern Time, 16 May 2001. Regards, Susan Hamlin Director, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers From richardj at arin.net Wed May 9 08:17:16 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:17:16 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks Message-ID: <001601c0d881$fd41c2a0$edfc95c0@arin.net> During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy meeting last month the issue of single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently utilized before their request for additional IP address space will be reviewed. Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts open with ARIN. Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue into consideration and prevents organizations from having to open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed May 9 11:24:18 2001 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:24:18 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344673@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Richard, I definitely believe that something needs to be put in place to address this issue. It does not make sense to force an organization to have multiple maintainers. Is there a way that ARIN can track assignments/allocations for useage other than by maintainer id? Another issue would be for organizations that wish to use a block of addresses for their backbone/infrastructure that is seperate from what they assign/allocate to their customers. Example: ISP A wishes to expand their network, have just received a /19 for assignment/allocation to customers, and want to get a seperate block to use for the expansion. Under current rules would they be able to receive additional address space from ARIN? -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:17 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy meeting last month the issue of single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently utilized before their request for additional IP address space will be reviewed. Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts open with ARIN. Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue into consideration and prevents organizations from having to open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From richardj at arin.net Wed May 9 11:50:33 2001 From: richardj at arin.net (Richard Jimmerson) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:50:33 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks In-Reply-To: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344673@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Message-ID: <005801c0d89f$c904ab60$edfc95c0@arin.net> Hello John, > Example: ISP > A wishes to expand their network, have just received a /19 for > assignment/allocation to customers, and want to get a > seperate block to use > for the expansion. Under current rules would they be able to receive > additional address space from ARIN? Organizations usually explain their IP address space requirements for customers and expansion all at once when they request IP address space from ARIN. An allocation that is made to them should cover all of this. The current policy states that once 80 percent of the allocation they receive has been efficiently utilized they may submit a request for additional IP address space. -Richard Jimmerson > -----Original Message----- > From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:24 AM > To: 'richardj at arin.net'; ppml at arin.net > Subject: RE: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks > > > Richard, > > I definitely believe that something needs to be put in place > to address this > issue. It does not make sense to force an organization to > have multiple > maintainers. Is there a way that ARIN can track > assignments/allocations for > useage other than by maintainer id? Another issue would be > for organizations > that wish to use a block of addresses for their > backbone/infrastructure that > is seperate from what they assign/allocate to their > customers. Example: ISP > A wishes to expand their network, have just received a /19 for > assignment/allocation to customers, and want to get a > seperate block to use > for the expansion. Under current rules would they be able to receive > additional address space from ARIN? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:17 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks > > > During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy > meeting last month the issue of single organizations with > multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. > > When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they > split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, > discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix > would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about > filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting > additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization > must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently > utilized before their request for additional IP address space will > be reviewed. > > Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and > splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, > discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may > have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a > slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% > would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall > utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. > This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria > for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. > > Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a > separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- > homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration > of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for > additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for > other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts > open with ARIN. > > Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue > into consideration and prevents organizations from having to > open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing > needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? > > This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion > that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your > feedback is requested. > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed May 9 11:51:30 2001 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:51:30 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344678@usresms03.teleglobe.com> Joshua, Thank you for the reply. I think I knew the answers but I am trying to help Richard get the ball rolling on discussing these issues and trying to come up with a policy where the answer could be "Yes" for this type of situation as well as the situation that Richard describes. I am interested in whether you believe that the current policy is fair and if so why? and if not again why? Also it would be great if you could provide some suggestions on how to make the policy better if you feel it should be changed. Thanks again. -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Abbott [mailto:cowsert at ipa.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:46 AM To: Sweeting, John Subject: Re: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks John, there is no other way for ARIN to track assign/alloc other than MAINTAINER ID. And the answer to your second questions is "NO". Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sweeting, John" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: RE: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks > Richard, > > I definitely believe that something needs to be put in place to address this > issue. It does not make sense to force an organization to have multiple > maintainers. Is there a way that ARIN can track assignments/allocations for > useage other than by maintainer id? Another issue would be for organizations > that wish to use a block of addresses for their backbone/infrastructure that > is seperate from what they assign/allocate to their customers. Example: ISP > A wishes to expand their network, have just received a /19 for > assignment/allocation to customers, and want to get a seperate block to use > for the expansion. Under current rules would they be able to receive > additional address space from ARIN? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jimmerson [mailto:richardj at arin.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:17 AM > To: ppml at arin.net > Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks > > > During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy > meeting last month the issue of single organizations with > multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. > > When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they > split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, > discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix > would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about > filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting > additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization > must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently > utilized before their request for additional IP address space will > be reviewed. > > Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and > splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, > discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may > have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a > slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% > would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall > utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. > This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria > for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. > > Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a > separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- > homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration > of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for > additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for > other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts > open with ARIN. > > Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue > into consideration and prevents organizations from having to > open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing > needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? > > This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion > that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your > feedback is requested. > > Richard Jimmerson > Director of Operations > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > From thinman at clp.cw.net Wed May 9 12:03:18 2001 From: thinman at clp.cw.net (Tanya Hinman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:03:18 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks In-Reply-To: <001601c0d881$fd41c2a0$edfc95c0@arin.net> Message-ID: Richard, >Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue >into consideration and prevents organizations from having to >open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing >needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? Yes, ARIN should make a change to its policy. This would give ISP's the ability to plan for each network appropriately. I also think this should be the case for Internal and Customer IP Address requests. Currently if you do not have 80% of your customer space utilized then you cannot obtain more address space for internal and backbone addressing without opening another maintainer account. Allowing these requests to be considered separate but billing under the same maintainer would also be a way that ARIN can cut the amount of income coming in from the membership, which was also discussed at the meeting. Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Richard Jimmerson Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:17 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy meeting last month the issue of single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently utilized before their request for additional IP address space will be reviewed. Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts open with ARIN. Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue into consideration and prevents organizations from having to open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com Wed May 9 12:39:49 2001 From: John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com (Sweeting, John) Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:39:49 -0400 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks Message-ID: <170E5E7779BCD3118C2A0008C7F40C1901344679@usresms03.teleglobe.com> I totally agree, point in case: If an ISP is going into an aggressive buildout of its infrastructure that is projected and budgeted over a 2 year period then it would make sense to assign a block of address space to that ISP that would cover the project. You may not give them all the address space at one time but at least you could reserve a block that would cover their network expansion plans and then dole it out IAW with their plan as long as they follow it and can provide the details required to justify releasing more of the reserved block. All during this time they will still need to provide address space to customers and it would make sense that this address space come from seperate block of address space. This is especially true for large, global networks but is also a concern with regional networks. -----Original Message----- From: Tanya Hinman [mailto:thinman at clp.cw.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:03 PM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: RE: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks Richard, >Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue >into consideration and prevents organizations from having to >open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing >needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? Yes, ARIN should make a change to its policy. This would give ISP's the ability to plan for each network appropriately. I also think this should be the case for Internal and Customer IP Address requests. Currently if you do not have 80% of your customer space utilized then you cannot obtain more address space for internal and backbone addressing without opening another maintainer account. Allowing these requests to be considered separate but billing under the same maintainer would also be a way that ARIN can cut the amount of income coming in from the membership, which was also discussed at the meeting. Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Richard Jimmerson Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 8:17 AM To: ppml at arin.net Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks During the open microphone session at the ARIN public policy meeting last month the issue of single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks was raised. When these organizations receive an allocation from ARIN, they split it up and assign a minimum of a /20 to each multi-homed, discrete network. There is a concern that a longer prefix would be filtered. Although this satisfies their concerns about filtering, it often conflicts with ARIN's policy for requesting additional IP address space. ARIN's policy states an organization must demonstrate 80% of their previous allocation is efficiently utilized before their request for additional IP address space will be reviewed. Apply the following scenario: An ISP receives a /18 from ARIN and splits it up into four /20s -- one for each of their multi-homed, discrete networks. After some time, one of those networks may have utilized 75% of its /20, but the others may be growing at a slower rate and only be at 25% each. The network that is at 75% would soon need additional IP address space, but the overall utilization of the /18 obtained from ARIN would only be at 37.5%. This would prevent that organization from meeting the criteria for obtaining additional IP address space from ARIN. Knowing this to be the case, the ISP may elect to justify a separate maintainer account with ARIN for that single multi- homed, discrete network. This eliminates any consideration of the growth rate of the other networks when applying for additional IP address space. If an ISP was to do this for other networks they would soon have many maintainer accounts open with ARIN. Should ARIN make a change to its policy that takes this issue into consideration and prevents organizations from having to open multiple maintainer accounts to meet the IP addressing needs of their multi-homed, discrete networks? This question is posed as a continuation of the discussion that took place at the recent public policy meeting. Your feedback is requested. Richard Jimmerson Director of Operations American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From arin at Overkill.EnterZone.Net Thu May 10 22:18:40 2001 From: arin at Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer - EnterZone) Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:18:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Suggested modification to the ARIN IP Allocation Fee Policy Message-ID: As we are all well aware of, there are many organizations who received very large address space allocations from IANA way back when who are only using a fraction of this address space. So, why don't these people return this address space and simply apply to ARIN for a more suitable allocation? Because it is not the financially sound thing to do. They don't have to pay for their legacy /16. Why would they want to move down to a /17 and PAY annually for it? So, what we're faced with is the problem of their being no true tangible incentive for returning unused/unneeded legacy address space and a VERY tangible penalty. I suggest the following: In this example, Joe has a legacy /16. He actually only has a need for an /18. Joe contacts ARIN, tells them that he feels guilty for hogging address space and tells them that he only needs an /18. THEY TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT. (He doesn't have to return the /16 AT ALL. Why should he have to justify keeping an /18 of it?) ARIN gives Joe his new /18 numbers. Joe renumbers. Joe returns the /16 to ARIN. ARIN notes that Joe, out of the goodness of his heart, returned a /16. This notation should be in the form of: Joe receives an annual credit of UP to a /16. This means, Joe shouldn't be billed for address space of up to a /16. He didn't have to return the /16 he already had and to bill him for address space (up to his original allocation) is a slap in the face. Joe's new /18 (or whatever allocation he deems he REALLY needs at the beginning of this process) is the only allocation that he doesn't have to provide justification documentation to ARIN for. If 6 months down the road, Joe needs another /18, and can show valid use of his existing /18, blah blah, he gets it -- no bill. Comments welcome. Direct flames to /dev/null --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc From andrew at internap.com Mon May 14 13:27:41 2001 From: andrew at internap.com (Andrew Dul) Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 10:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks (fwd) Message-ID: Hello, I have been working on a policy draft as a followup to the discussion that occurred at the ARIN meeting. I have tried to address the concerns of conservation as well as creating a policy that will work for organizations with these type of concerns. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of the full draft please let me know. I have summarized the main points of the policy below. Please feel free to comment regarding these points. Regards, Andrew ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Criteria for the policy to apply: * The organization must have a compelling criteria for creating discrete networks. (Examples: regulatory restrictions, geographic diversity, etc) * Applies only to new and existing ARIN allocations after organization has requested this policy to apply to their account. * Multiple maintainers per organization will not be allowed after implementation. Requirements for additional allocations under the policy: * Each discrete network must show greater than 80% utilization before allocating an additional address block. * Network Operators should attempt to provide for CIDR block growth paths for networks to reduce number of announcements per diverse network. * All allocations and last block granted to the organization must show greater than 50% utilization for ARIN to grant an additional address block. From huberman at gblx.net Thu May 17 18:43:54 2001 From: huberman at gblx.net (David R Huberman) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:43:54 -0700 (MST) Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In response, I found I agreed with all of the requirements, but none of the criteria statements. to wit: > Criteria for the policy to apply: > > * The organization must have a compelling criteria for creating discrete > networks. (Examples: regulatory restrictions, geographic diversity, etc) That's not ARIN's business. ARIN does not nor should not be involved with organization's business plans. "Why are you designing your network like this?" "Because we are." And that's that. Please do not try and make ARIN into more than what it is! We should not require ARIN's stamp-of-approval on major design issues. > * Applies only to new and existing ARIN allocations after organization has > requested this policy to apply to their account. I don't see why this is necessary to state in a policy. Organizations either aggregate their address space or they don't. As ARIN hostmasters consider any given request, the existence or lack thereof of such aggregation needs to be taken into account. > * Multiple maintainers per organization will not be allowed after > implementation. Absolutely disagree. It's my prerogative to use the current policy framework to the greatest benefit of my company. While in most cases, a sensible individual can look at a company's numbering goals and state that using multiple maintainer ID's and ARIN accounts is both inadvisable and entirely unnecessary, that's not always 100% the case. The policy framework that exists now mostly works. This whole discussion is an outgrowth of part of the policy that some of us feels doesn't work. However, it doesn't preclude completely different circumstances, completely different implementations, from using the other existing policies to their organization's benefit. I guess that's a long-winded way of saying I don't think ARIN should be outlawing multiple accounts arbitrarily. > Requirements for additional allocations under the policy: > > * Each discrete network must show greater than 80% utilization before > allocating an additional address block. Absolutely. > * Network Operators should attempt to provide for CIDR block growth > paths for networks to reduce number of announcements per diverse > network. As worded, absolutely. > * All allocations and last block granted to the organization must show > greater than 50% utilization for ARIN to grant an additional address block. I created a few scenarios for wide-scale geographical aggregation in hopes of getting the mathematics to work out in support of your statement. In each case, it did, perfectly. 50% is the logical utilization percentage for widely-aggregated networks. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------* From Clay at exodus.net Thu May 17 19:19:31 2001 From: Clay at exodus.net (Clay) Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:19:31 -0700 Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <012401c0df27$d5a569c0$4e00ff0a@CLAMBERTW2KD> This is absolutely not acceptable: Geography does not necessarily dictate Customer utilization. In our example, new datacenters and datacenters in young markets (geographically) can grow their utilization rates very slowly...in comparison to developed markets (comparing silicon valley to Okalahoma city). If there is any talk about not allowing single organizations to register and obtain multiple maintainers (and allocations), then there MUST be no correlation between utilization rates of the multiple network deployments (under the same maintainer). And contrary to your statement that: "While in most cases, a sensible individual can look at a company's numbering goals and state that using multiple maintainer ID's and ARIN accounts is both inadvisable and entirely unnecessary" ...it is necessary anytime you have disparate networks that grow at uneven rates...If there is a policy requiring the entire network (under the maintainer organization) to be at or above some set percentage of utilization. This would also be true if there were a policy requiring "All allocations and last block granted to the organization must show greater than 50% utilization for ARIN to grant an additional address block.". It would be a grave mistake to base widely impacting policies upon a few scenarios. Other than those particular areas, I pretty much agree with you on the other points in your previous email! :-D -Clay *--------------------------------* From andrew at internap.com Tue May 22 13:03:49 2001 From: andrew at internap.com (Andrew Dul) Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Single organizations with multi-homed, discrete networks (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David, Thanks for you comments, you have valid points regarding the criteria that I proposed. The primary reason that I thought it was necessary to attach criteria was to encourage address space conservation, and not to promote wasteful usage. Additional comments inline. On Thu, 17 May 2001, David R Huberman wrote: > > In response, I found I agreed with all of the requirements, but none of > the criteria statements. > > to wit: > > > Criteria for the policy to apply: > > > > * The organization must have a compelling criteria for creating discrete > > networks. (Examples: regulatory restrictions, geographic diversity, etc) > > That's not ARIN's business. > > ARIN does not nor should not be involved with organization's business > plans. > > "Why are you designing your network like this?" > "Because we are." > > And that's that. > > Please do not try and make ARIN into more than what it is! We should not > require ARIN's stamp-of-approval on major design issues. > I see what you mean, but ARIN already makes judgments about what is and isn't appropriate usage of IP space. The first criteria was designed to prevent organizations from just deciding that "X" usage was justification for routing a /20. I can envision some real abuses (wastes of space) that could result if any usage was OK, but hopefully the utilization requirements hopefully would restrict additional allocations. Perhaps this criteria isn't needed. > > * Applies only to new and existing ARIN allocations after organization has > > requested this policy to apply to their account. > > I don't see why this is necessary to state in a policy. Organizations > either aggregate their address space or they don't. As ARIN hostmasters > consider any given request, the existence or lack thereof of such > aggregation needs to be taken into account. > I added this requirement so an organization couldn't go to ARIN and ask for 16 /20's for their individual networks on an initial allocation. This would be a huge waste of IP space if the organization never had plans to use that space in an efficient manner nor return to ARIN in the future for additional space. I also wanted to maintain the idea of "slow-start" to prevent wasteful usage of IP space, similar to the RIPE assignment window idea. > > * Multiple maintainers per organization will not be allowed after > > implementation. > > Absolutely disagree. It's my prerogative to use the current policy > framework to the greatest benefit of my company. While in most cases, a > sensible individual can look at a company's numbering goals and state that > using multiple maintainer ID's and ARIN accounts is both inadvisable and > entirely unnecessary, that's not always 100% the case. > My initial thought was that this policy would cover all the cases where one would want to open multiple maintainers. If the policy covered those cases then there probably wouldn't be a need for multiple maintainers. I wasn't advocating that organizations which already had multiple maintainers should be forced to convert, only that after the time the policy was in place it wouldn't be necessary to allow for multiple maintainers.