[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Mailing List]

Can someone solve this mystery:

If an organization is getting connections from two or more ISPs
(Multihomed), the organization will receive am ASN and a /24 IP address from
one of its ISPs, then, that organization and its ISPs will announce that /24
to the Internet.

This will add an entry to the global routing table in the same way as if
that organization received and announced its /24 IP space from ARIN.

In the above situation (multihomed network), ARIN's argument of not
assigning /24 for the reason of an increase in the global routing table does
not make sense. Whether that organization received its /24 from one of its
ISPs or from ARIN, in both cases the /24 will be announced and added to the
global routing table.

What is the excuse of ARIN not assigning /24 to multihomed networks?

Thanks,

Bernard Kohan
Comentum Corp.
Tel 858/410-0700
Fax 858/410-0707
www.comentum.com
support at comentum.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp at hilander.com>
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


> --On Tuesday, October 1, 2002 14:19 -0400 Beran <beran at beranpeter.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Equal access to ip space is VERY important to the Internet community at
> > large. This should be a TOP priority!
>
> There are other priorities at work.  If ARIN allocates a /24 to anybody
who
> asks for one, there will be a massive land grab.  The supply we have now
> will seem even smaller than it is now, and routing table size will get
> completely out of control.
>
> >
> > It is clear now that we have had a number of years of operation in the
> > current format to understand that IP space is still being improperly
> > utilized/horded/charged for etc.
> > Why not allow /24 address space allocations?
>
> I don't quite follow how relaxing our allocation policy will change the
> issues you percieve with hoarding and utilization.
>
> > I see and have heard NO good reasons not to allow it. The same process
and
> > the same requirements for a /20 address space works well now so why not
> > for /24.
>
> For exactly the same reasons that the InterNIC decided to only allocate
/19
> and shorter blocks in the mid 90s.  Because address space is a very
limited
> resource.  I encourage you to look at the discussions on the PAGAN, CIDRD
> and NANOG lists that took place when these policies were first introduced.
> Back then, at the rate of consumption that we saw address space was not
> going to last more than a few more years.
>
> There are many more things that we need to consider.  The fact that some
> small businesses claim they are being gouged by their service providers is
> unfortunate, but it is not an issue that ARIN can or should address.  In
> the mid 90s there were extremely good reasons to put restrictions on who
> can get address space.  Having ARIN only allocate large blocks of address
> space (/20) accomplishes a lot.  Even though multi-homed customers are
> sometimes announcing their PA space as a more specific, that address space
> is still aggregatable.  So a service provider can make a decision to only
> accept /20 and shorter announcements in ARIN-allocated address space and
> can still reach the entire Internet.  Were ARIN to begin allocating /24s
> this would no longer be possible.
>
> > ARIN IS doing a good job. Great people, great service, and responsive.
> > ISP's on average have not been any of these. And to charge EVERY month
for
> > EVERY ip used which was essentially free to obtain for anyone to justify
a
> > couple years ago is terrible.
>
> If you are unhappy with what your service provider is charging you, I
> suggest you complain to your service provider or find a new one.  Service
> providers have real costs associated with the services that they provide.
> How they charge for them is their business, and if they charge too much
> then open market forces will correct it.  Do you complain to your
> provider's upstream provider when they charge you too much for the
> bandwidth you are purchasing?  Do you complain to the VeriSign Registry
> when your registrar charges you too much for a domain name?
>
> Alec
>
> --
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com