Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2001-2

[Darrell Newcomb]

I fully agree this proposal should be adopted as well.

I think setting the easily acquired address space at /24 has a couple
benefits not already directly mentioned:
1)Provides an upper bound for the "easy"(not actually justifiable)
allocations.  This should also still satisfy (a)the manhood of
Splitrock's
customers, (b)in the dark customers demanding a "Class C", and
(c)removing the need for customers to lie(aka customer retention).
2)Gives providers one more tool to beat back unreasonable address
space requests.  Presenting the accepted practice of assigning /24's for
multihoming from a 3rd party.  In customer address assignment disputes
I've found pointing a 3rd party or Authority to be very helpful in
education and buy-in of customers.

Darrell

Trevor Paquette wrote:
> 
> Excellent comments Dan, I always like seeing a different view.
> 
> I sincerely hope you are right; I have seen customers that are
> very good about what size of an IP block they would like, and
> I have seen customers that love to hoard IPs.
> 
> I hope that the hording customers don't use this policy as a
> further means to their ends.
> 
> BTW for the record; I am not opposed to this policy, I support it.
> I just wanted to point out a few possible scenarios that may result
> by ARIN adopting this policy.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding at sockeye.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:57 PM
> > To: Trevor Paquette; ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2001-2
> >
> >
> > to address the issues raised by Trevor Paquette...
> >
> >       In regard to your first point, I strongly disagree that
> > this policy
> > will
> > cause an increase in wasted IP space. Currently, it is common
> > knowledge that
> > a /24 is, more or less, globally routable. Thus, customers
> > generally demand,
> > and generally receive /24s upon requests, for the purpose of
> > multihoming. In
> > those circumstances where ISPs demand additional
> > justification for the /24
> > allocation, the customer will either provide it (if they have
> > it), or lie in
> > order to receive it. As there are numerous legitimate
> > multihomed enterprises
> > that can not justify a /24 via current standard, we have a significant
> > amount of false justification. This isn't because people are
> > dishonest -
> > it's because there is a business requirement in many cases to
> > multihome, and
> > an exaggerated justification is the only way to do it. Any policy that
> > encourages normally honest people to deceive ARIN or an
> > upstream ISP in
> > order to achieve a legitimate purpose is, ipso facto,
> > contrary to the good
> > of the internet community, as open and honest communications
> > between issuer
> > and issue is essential.
> >
> > Therefore, IPv4 exhaustion will not occur any sooner - it
> > will occur at the
> > same rate. However, the general level of honesty and open
> > communication will
> > rise, which is a worthy goal.
> >
> >       In regard to your second point, I disagree that
> > customers will take
> > advantage of this policy to illegitimately secure IP space.
> > There is almost
> > no reason for a customer to request a /24 unless they intend
> > to multihome.
> > Even if they feel they need it, checking for the issuance of
> > an AS, and
> > receiving the customer's assurance that they will multihome should be
> > sufficient. I don't think anyone will be going back to police their
> > customers - however, it will be appropriate to ensure compliance with
> > previous allocations at the time of a request for new allocation. If
> > additional allocations are made for internal political
> > reasons by an ISP,
> > they will need to be able to justify them to ARIN. If an
> > organization is so
> > shortsighted that it would issue space to customers
> > irresponsibly, this
> > policy proposal will neither accentuate nor ameliorate that
> > irresponsibility. In the end, such practices tend to "catch
> > up" to ISPs -
> > usually when they are trying to get additional space from ARIN.
> >
> >       In regard to your third point, I'm confused. Is your
> > assertion that
> > making
> > it easier to get globally routable blocks will promote
> > multihoming? If so,
> > you are correct in that assertion. However, ARIN is meeting
> > the demands of
> > it's membership in promoting multihoming. Your concerns in
> > regard to AS
> > number depletion are currently being addressed in the IETF IDR working
> > group's draft: BGP support for four-octet AS number space,
> > draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-04.txt. At the current rate of AS
> > depletion, there
> > should be sufficient AS numbers for 4 to 6 years into the
> > future. This draft
> > should be implemented will before then.
> >
> >       Your forth point is only tangentially related to this policy
> > proposal.
> > Ensuring that customers meet, and then continue to meet,
> > requirements for
> > the allocation of IP space has long been the responsibility of their
> > upstream provider. Although this can be a difficult issue,
> > service providers
> > should continue their current policies in this regard, which generally
> > adhere to the idea of requiring justification at time of
> > issuance, and then
> > requiring additional justification (As well as confirmation
> > of previous
> > justification) upon additional address request. This is the
> > general model
> > upon which ARIN related to it's member-customers, and is a
> > good model for
> > it's members to use in relation to their own customers. No
> > one is being
> > required to be an "IP Address Cop" to the detriment of their business.
> > However, everyone is required to act responsibly to safeguard a public
> > resource. This policy proposal does not alter that axiom.
> >
> > Needless to say, I support Policy Proposal 2001-2, and urge
> > the ARIN BoD to
> > adopt it at their earliest convenience.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Daniel Golding
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> > > Trevor Paquette
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:48 PM
> > > To: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: RE: Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2001-2
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > By adopting this policy I think the following points should be made:
> > >
> > > 1) IPv4 exhaustion
> > >    v4 space will be used at a higher rate, with an increase of
> > > wasted space.
> > >    More and more companies are beginning to rely on the internet
> > > to conduct
> > >    their day to day business operations (Raise your hand if
> > you've heard
> > >    complaints from customers when email is not delivered
> > within 5 minutes
> > >    after they hit 'send'). As such, these companies will
> > begin to look at
> > >    providing their own redundant links to the Internet (via
> > multi-homing)
> > >    and not depend on the redundancy of their upstream provider.
> > > This 'always
> > >    connected' (vs 'always on') requirement will increase IP
> > requests to
> > >    upstream providers.
> > >
> > > 2) Potential for abuse of the policy to secure IP space.
> > >    I can see companies begin to abuse Policy 2001-2 to secure a /24
> > >    and use very little address space out of that block. Some
> > > companies will
> > >    lie about being or becoming multi-homed in order to secure
> > > more IP space
> > >    then they really need.
> > >
> > >    In today's world, revenue is king. If I have to tell a
> > customer because
> > >    they are no longer multi-homed (or they lied about it),
> > that I have to
> > >    pull their IP space; and they threaten to terminate
> > their service with
> > >    us; guess who is going to win. The customer. Very few
> > Senior Executives
> > >    understand or care about IP Policy; their job is to make
> > the company
> > >    money, keep the revenues flowing. If that means the
> > customer gets to
> > >    keep their /24; so be it.
> > >
> > > 3) The current AS limit.
> > >    As a few folks have mentioned before that AS numbers are
> > a much scarcer
> > >    commodity then IP space. I agree with that statement. Policy
> > > 2001-2 will
> > >    make the AS space run out faster. (Do we need to propose
> > an new policy
> > >    or an RFC on increasing AS size?)
> > >
> > > 4) Reclaimation
> > >    How does an ISP reclaim the IP space (here comes the key
> > > phrase) "without
> > >    losing that customer", should the customer decide one
> > day that they no
> > >    longer want to be multi-homed? Is it up to the ISP that gave
> > > the IP space
> > >    in the first place to periodically check to make sure that the
> > > customer is
> > >    in fact still multi-homed? (which brings up point 2 again)
> > >
> > > Remember, I'm not saying that these points will happen. I'm
> > > saying that these
> > > are very possible scenarios.
> > >
> > > My apologies if this has been discussed before; I was in
> > Nassau during the
> > > hurricane (very little Internet access in Nassau, even more
> > so during the
> > > storm and the days following it) and I just got home to start
> > > catching up on
> > > things.
> > >
> > > Trev
> > > --
> > >
> > > Trevor Paquette          |TeraGo Networks Inc.  |Work:(403)668-5321
> > > Trevor.Paquette at TeraGo.ca|300, 300 Manning Rd NE|Cell:(403)703-8738
> > > Lead Systems Architect   |Calgary, AB, Canada   |Main:(403)668-5300
> > > http://www.terago.ca     |       T2E 4K8        | Fax:(403)668-5344
> > >
> >
> >