[ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment w ith sponsorship

[McBurnett, Jim]

here here...
I agree totally.. But does that go in this policy or do we just send this as a 
comment to ARIN BOT?
Jim


>
>> If we are to recommend a microallocation policy, I would 
>like to see it
>> linked to the ASN process, since you shouldn't have one 
>without the other.
>
>Everybody who registers an ASN ultimately wants their
>own net.  An ASN and a net should be a simple ARIN bundled
>service.
>
>Regards,
>
>Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
>IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - WorldCom
>Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
>email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com
>
>
>On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Taylor, Stacy wrote:
>
>> Hi All, 
>> Speaking for the Office of IP Management for ICG only, I 
>wonder why I would
>> have to do more templates when multihoming information from 
>two ISPs is
>> required on the ASN request template.  Is my ASN not already in fact
>> "sponsoring" the multihomer by including my information on the
>> record/request?  
>> 
>> If the ASN registrant changes one or both of its ISPs, it is for the
>> registrant to update their ARIN record, not the upstreams.
>> 
>> If we are to recommend a microallocation policy, I would 
>like to see it
>> linked to the ASN process, since you shouldn't have one 
>without the other.
>> 
>> Stacy
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:36 AM
>> To: Marla Azinger
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip 
>assignment
>> with sponsorship
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I've missed most of this discussion too, but it sure seems 
>like it leaves
>> a lot open for abuse, confusion, mistakes, etc.
>> 
>> Why can't ARIN check to make sure they have 2 upstreams by asking for
>> contracts and bills the first time around, and at renewal 
>time check some
>> of the backbone routers to make sure their AS is being 
>announced by two
>> providers.  There are gobs of places that ARIN could check 
>this from that
>> would take 1 minute to do.  If for some reason it doesn't 
>show up in the
>> routing tables, then the ISP could provide bills.  If they 
>can't provide
>> bills proving they have two upstreams, yank the IPs.
>> 
>> Part of me is also against the /24 allocation in the first 
>place.  I know
>> what it feels like, since I was a little irked when I 
>couldn't get space
>> when we started out.  But in the end it wasn't the end of the world.
>> Renumbering out of a /24 isn't a life ending task.  Sure, it 
>sucks, and
>> everyone would rather not do it, but hey almost all of us 
>have had to deal
>> with it and we all made it okay.
>> 
>> If you are multi-homed you need to contact your upstreams to 
>announce the
>> block anyway so it doesn't provide any benefit there.
>> 
>> Sorry to all those who disagree, it's just my two cents.
>> 
>> Mury
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Marla Azinger wrote:
>> 
>> > Hello-  I know I've missed alot of the discussion between the last
>> > conference and up to this point...so please bear with me 
>and the question
>> I
>> > have...
>> >
>> > Why is it necessary for an ISP to "sponsor" this?  So 
>far...sponsorship
>> > sounds like more of a headache than anything...I'm sure I'm missing
>> > something because up to this point...I would just say my 
>company isnt
>> going
>> > to participate in order to avoid...basically...all of 
>it...we'v done fine
>> > without this until now...
>> >
>> > I guess what I'm missing here is...how is a smaller 
>telecom company that
>> > provides internet access supposed to benefit from 
>"sponsoring" this?  Is
>> > there a benefit...or is this a bandaid for integrity 
>issues?  I'm sure
>> > there's a good list of reasons I'm missing...like I said 
>I've missed most
>> of
>> > the discussion up to this point...but could someone 
>provide a short and to
>> > the point list of how we'd benefit from "sponsoring" this?
>> >
>> > Thank you for your patience and time
>> > Marla
>> > ELI IP Analyst
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I would rather not see this language. The policy states 
>that ISP A or ISP
>> B
>> > must inform ARIN
>> > when this happens. I know we can't depend on this to work, 
>but if we build
>> > in a backup, why even
>> > ask ISP A or ISP B to inform ARIN of this change?
>> >
>> > Jim
>> > >
>> > > I think some sort of language saying that ARIN will do 
>audits of the
>> > > assignments from time to time is needed.  Or perhaps when you
>> > > pay your
>> > > annual renewal fee, you should have to provide proof along
>> > > with it that
>> > > you are still connected to more than 1 upstream.  Basically
>> > > something that
>> > > will prevent someone from being multihomed today, get a micro
>> > > assignment,
>> > > and then drop their second provider while keeping their micro
>> > > assignment.
>> > >
>> > > Forrest
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I'v made a 2nd draft for proposal for ip micro-assignment
>> > > with sponsorship.
>> > > > It does not format well to be posted in the email as text
>> > > but you can
>> > > > review it online at:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_proposal_for_micro_assignmen
>> > > ts_with_sponsorship.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > If you have any futher suggestions please feel free to
>> > > email me or otherwise
>> > > > discuss it on this list. If there are no suggestions for
>> > > addition to the
>> > > > current text, this will be the proposal I will send to
>> > > Richard Jimmerson
>> > > > end of this week.
>> > > >
>> > > > ----
>> > > > William Leibzon
>> > > > Elan Communications
>> > > > william at elan.net
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> 
>
>