[ppml] RE: ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-7

Mark Radabaugh mark at amplex.net
Wed Sep 25 22:11:30 EDT 2002

> The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as
> follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum):
> 	$400.00 per year for /23 - /24
> 	$1000.00 per year for /21 - /22

I think the proposed fee schedule and reduced allocation minimums is a good
idea.  Currently we (Amplex) advertise 4 prefixes even though we could
advertise a single prefix if we used an allocation from ARIN.  The current
cost of $2500/year versus essentially free from our upstreams has been the
main reason for not applying for our own allocation.

In our case (and I suspect other smaller service providers) the current ARIN
policy is increasing global routing load rather then decreasing it since we
advertise the discontiguous blocks that have been allocated by our upstreams
rather than a single larger 'ARIN' block.

I would like to see some type of 'reservation' policy if ARIN decides to
offer allocation below a /20 - something similar to the current practice of
issuing a /21 while holding the /20.

Perhaps trying to determine if the organization requesting space from ARIN
anticipates needing additional space in the future should be part of the
allocation process.

A end user company (not a service provider) may have very valid reasons for
wanting their own /24 allocation and not expect to need additional space in
the future.  A service provider on the other hand may only need a /23 at
first but expects to see additional growth.  It would help cut down on
announcements if the remainder of the /20 that the /23 came from is
'reserved' for this provider.

I realize that this can become difficult to manage -- ARIN could end up with
lots of reserved 'holes' in the allocated space.  I don't have a good answer
for that problem...

> 3. Once a small business obtains IP addresses from their upstream
> providers, upstream providers are able to hold that small business
> "hostage"

This has been a issue for us though it was related to service quality rather
than price.

Mark Radabaugh

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list