/20's for the needy
Stephen and all,
Here is my take on this situation. (See below Stephens comments)
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> My expectation was that there would be guidelines about who qualifies for
> an allocation out of the block, and rules about future allocations if you
> get one; here's what has been bouncing around in my head:
> To qualify:
> . Must have an ASN
> . Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already
> . Must not qualify for a /19 (or shorter) under RFC 2050
> . Must be capable of advertising the /20 to peers within 30 days
My idea's to Qualify.
1.) Must be a ASN unless new startup, than must apply as part of
2.) Must have no more than 4096 PI IPs already, unless it is a new
than based on projected size of startup broke down on RFC2050 specs.
3.) Must be able to qualify for any size dependant on current efficient
use of current allocations, unless new ISP start-up, than based on
projected size of startup in accordance with breakdown in RFC2050.
4.) Must be capable of advertising the /? to peers within 60 days
> . Must be renewed every 12 months or will be reclaimed automatically
> . Will not be allocated other PI blocks until the /20 is scheduled for return
> > By education I'm talking about things like Justin's post to
> > NANOG the other day, where he was inviting people to volunteer
> > to help the folks who, according to Tony's CIDR report, are
> > having aggregation problems (or making mistakes.)
> I went through the CIDR report once and emailed the contact for every AS in
> the "most wanted" list, plus all of the "potentially interesting
> aggregates" section, to offer any assistance they needed to make their
> advertisements more efficient; only one provider (ANS) admitted any
> problems (they were advertising 96 more-specifics for a B), and the rest
> claimed to have everything configured properly and that they didn't want
> any assistance.
> > And by punishment, we'd have to come up with fair but firm
> > policies for revoking allocations or something like that.
> I would think that revoking past allocations would be too expensive to
> defend in court; denying new allocations should be enough to bully most
> ISPs into compliance.
I think that this may be difficult to defend in court as well, unless
spicific guidelines or specs are added to RFC2050 or, made part of the
future ARIN published policies/requirnments. ISP's or new start-up
ISP's must show in a formatted planning document stating that they
will comply with these spicific steps (As I indicated above), within
a givin time period to be spicificaly stated.
> > BTW, I'm not in any way convinced that these are the best or
> > even the only ways to make something like this work...I'm
> > really just brainstorming here.
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC.
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com