[ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
Renumbering out of a /24 may not be the end of the world, but what about
renumbering all of your /28 customers out of a /21?
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:35 AM -0600 Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> 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.
> 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
>> 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?
>> > 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
>> > >