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

[Bill Darte]

The only problem I see with this is the subjectiveness.... I personally
don't have a problem with ARIN's discretion in the matter....does anyone
else......?

6 months up to /20...... 12 months beyond?

billd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sweeting, John [mailto:John.Sweeting at teleglobe.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: 'Bill Darte'; 'Taylor, Stacy'
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2002-6
> 
> 
> 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      
> ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
> > 
>