[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7

[Jeff Urmann]

on 9/26/2002 Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) wrote:
>Again this entire reasoning doesn't have much weight because anyone in
>the general public that has concern about ARIN policies can  be involved
>in shaping them.  I also believe that if ARIN did start to assign blocks
>longer then a /20 you would find that there are many ISPs that would
>filter them out.  This is not something that can be voted on or discussed.
>It is up to the individual organizations on how they set up there filters.
>I'm not sure how it would help companies to get smaller blocks that
>probably are not going to be routable anyway.   I know routing is not an
>ARIN concern but I think if we are going to change an existing guideline
>we should take it in consideration.

Since I am a member of the general public, I propose the following real
life scenario...

CompanyA and CompanyB, each having their own autonomy, are using private
IP addresses as described in RFC1918.  Both Companies are connected
independently to the internet via their ISP of choice.  Both companies wish
to connect to each other directly (not through the internet).  Since there
is a conflict in IP addresses, NAT is necessary.  CompanyA needs about 100
distinct IP addresses (to start anyway).  To the best of my knowledge, there
is currently no way to get a non-routable or routable public /24 to satisfy
these requirements.

As for routablility, neither company needs or wants these addresses routed.
How many other currently silent small businesses out there have a similar
situation?  How many of them know about ARIN, this mailing list, etc...
IOW, how would they know when, how and where to discuss or vote?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20021001/46c250ad/attachment.htm>