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

[Taylor, Stacy]

Good idea.  John's 2 level sounds reasonable to me. 
The enforcement issue remains, though.  Does the Registry contact the
upstream and the organization?  Notices of Action that routing of the old
block(s) will be discontinued 30 days prior? As someone said at the meeting,
we should have a stick to go with the carrot.  (Was that Bill W.?)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:56 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      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
>