[ppml] 2002-7--- A New idea---

[Forrest]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> If we went exactly by the APNIC policy-
> they do not stipulate a block size... 
> Then maybe we, those of us in ARIN, are too bent around the
> axel with US Law and triyng to be TOO exact and TOO strict.
> 
> Think of this. 2001-2 justifies a Class C for Multihoming.
> Change the below to read:
> You can apply for an assigment of any size with a minimum of a /24, as defined bby ARIN 2001-2.
> All blocks large than a /24 are subject to standard 25 % and 50 % usage requirements as defined by current ARIN 
> policy.
> 

I don't really think you need to specify a minimum block size for this.   
Assuming ARIN adopted the exact same policy/fees that APNIC is using, I 
can't imagine anyone paying $1200 per year for a /25 or longer.  Not to 
mention that most of the internet isn't going to accept their route 
anyway.  I think APNIC's policy is a little vague though, there doesn't 
seem to be any requirement to continue being multi-homed after receiving 
your IP assignment.  

APNIC's policy is a good template to work from but I think something 
needs to be added to it saying that your IP space will be revoked if you 
can't prove that you're still multihomed when it comes time to pay your 
annual IP address and/or ASN fee.  I think something also needs to be 
added saying that these small IP assignments will come from blocks within 
the old Class C space to avoid being filtered by ISP's that filter on the 
old class boundries.  Otherwise, you may find that your /23 assignment 
out of 69.0.0.0/8 is blackholed by some providers.  

Forrest