[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> William Herrin wrote:
>>> But that's entirely beside the point. Single-homed entities require
>>> zero routes in the DFZ to function as designed on a day to day basis
>>> while multihomed entities require at least one. That was the point.
>> Except that there are significant business/economic problems with it
>> working the way your describing.
>> While it is true that a single homed entity that qualifies under 188.8.131.52 for
>> a /20 CAN have their single upstream feed advertise that /20 under
>> the upstream's AS, in practice this is almost never done.
> You misrepresent my position. Single-homed ISPs who can't justify a
> /20 generally consume -zero- routes in the DFZ today. Each one who
> gets IP addresses under your proposal consumes at least one more route
> than zero. Contrarily, multihomed ISPs each consume at least one route
> in the table today, despite not getting addresses from ARIN. They're
> likely to consume the same or fewer routes after getting ARIN
> addresses and renumbering out of their ISP /24's (as required by your
Bill, I hate to point it out to you but you did not make any statement
of /20 in your post of the 6th, you were speaking generally and I
responded by pointing out out that everything /20 and above didn't
follow this general statement. So, I didn't misrepresent your statement
, I merely only responded to the part of it concerning ISP's ABOVE the
/21 boundary. :-)
Seriously, sure - ISP's who hold a /21 or below from an upstream AND
who take advantage of this policy will cause a new DFZ entry where there
was none before.
However, multihomers who qualify for a /22 right now are completely
free to KEEP that /22 and go get another /22, when requesting an
additional allocation. Thus, creating 2 DFZ entries.
Under this proposal we put a stop to that. Multihomers no longer exist
as a special class, when ANYONE gets a /22 and then goes and requests
an additional allocation, they will have to return that first /22 to get
their /21. Thus, knocking then back down to 1 DFZ entry.
This policy giveth with the left hand and taketh away with the right
hand. It is, as they say, "a wash"
> I respectfully decline to debate whether /20 is a wise boundary above
> which orgs should be able to get PI space regardless of multihoming.
> Good or bad, it is the starting point from which your proposal is
Some would look at this discussion and make the observation that the
ARIN community doesn't give much beyond a rat's ass about slimming the
DFZ down. ;-)
Because if they did, then ALL increasing allocations up to a /8 would
MANDATE renumber and return.
>>> If I hear different from the likes of Verizon and AT&T, I'll drop my
>> Would you be willing to drop your opposition if you DON'T hear opposition
>> from the likes of Verizon and AT&T? After all, if they figure it isn't
>> going to make much difference to the DFZ, then they have every incentive to
>> remain neutral.
> If I hear support from ISPs that are spending millions on DFZ routers
> every year, I'll change my position to support. Otherwise, I'll
> imagine myself in their shoes and ask: what would Bill Herrin want?
> Bill Herrin wouldn't want to buy expensive new equipment any sooner
> than he has to, especially not because someone else changed the rules.
Now come, now Bill. We all change the rules to help each other out,
that is the point of this. You and your ISP or your employers or
whatever all cost the rest of us money, too - your existence costs
people money. Please don't circle the wagons here, we are going to have
enough of that post-IPv4 runout.