[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6

[Sweeting, John]

It may be easier for ARIN to manage a 2 level formatted something like:

Everyone automatically gets 6 months but if they can justify why it will
take longer the time could be extended to no more than 12 months.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:56 AM
To: 'Taylor, Stacy'
Cc: ARIN PPML
Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6


I basically agree that a renumbering timetable is necessary and that is
should try to be compassionate without leading to procrastination...we want
to motivate the return behavior. I also agree that people should be prepared
for the migration by the time they take advantage of the policy.  Perhaps
there is a middle ground that would 'scale'... maybe a maximum of 3 levels.
3 months for aggregates smaller than /22, 6 months for /22-/20 and 12 months
for larger than /20.  Would this be too cumbersome?  What about only 2
levels?

billd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:38 AM
> To: 'Craig A. Huegen'; Taylor, Stacy
> Cc: 'Sweeting, John'; ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6
> 
> 
> There is no one on this list who does not understand the pain of
> renumbering.  However, it seems to me that the scope of this 
> policy does not
> encompass the renumbering of large end-sites.  In my RFC2050 /24
> reclamation/Smackdown many endusers complained that it would 
> take them 6
> months to move off my numbers, but when threatened with 
> routing cessation
> they were off in 3 weeks.  People prepared to utilize this 
> policy should
> have the resources already in place to renumber when they 
> make the request.
>   
> An organization turning in three disparate /24s for a /22 
> should not require
> that much time. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig A. Huegen [mailto:chuegen at cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:25 AM
> To: Taylor, Stacy
> Cc: 'Sweeting, John'; ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6
> 
> 
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Taylor, Stacy wrote:
> 
> > I think that 12 months to renumber is overly generous.  
> Organizations
> > willing to request aggregatable space should be ready to 
> renumber before
> > they request it.
> 
> Renumbering a larger network takes some significant time.  Software
> packages tie license keys to IP addresses, software has IP 
> addresses hard
> coded, etc.  Each of these requires project management, 
> finding downtime
> windows, user announcements / user upgrades, etc.  In some 
> environments,
> 12 months is actually a very tight squeeze when you're 
> renumbering, even
> in a fully DHCP-enabled environment for end users.
> 
> Don't underestimate the work required in renumbering for 
> medium and large
> end-sites.  It's not fun, and I have battle scars to prove it.
> 
> /cah
> 
> ---
> Craig A. Huegen, Chief Network Architect      C i s c o  S y s t e m s
> IT Transport, Network Technology & Design           ||        ||
> Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
> San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
> email: chuegen at cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
>