[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

[McBurnett, Jim]

All,
Let me add some comments here:
QUOTE:
Use IP space from one of their upstreams on both connections. 
This can lead to load balancing issues, and also makes the 
end-user more dependent on the ISP who assigned the space. 
The ISP's business problems, for instance could force 
downtime and/or renumbering.
END QUOTE:

No offense to any ISP, but this not only happened to us, but it
is STILL causing us problems.

My IP block is from an ISP that has poor enforcement of their
AUP, and as such I got lumped into it. They would not SWIP my
block, (QUOTE: " that is something we cannot do") and would not 
reverse DNS while I was bringing up my DNS servers.

When another ISP issued an ALL MAIL from X SPACE will be blocked,
we got hurt badly.

I hate to see the /22 in this, as I am multi-homed and I don't foresee
the ability to use it in a year. But I understand the routing table issue.

The one item I do not see mentioned is Cost.
At one point there was discussion about a reduced price to end-users, that were
not reselling/leasing etc the space.  What is the status of this?

Thanks,
Jim


->-----Original Message-----
->From: Forrest [mailto:forrest at almighty.c64.org]
->Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:25 PM
->To: ppml at arin.net
->Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for
->Multihomed Networks
->
->
->
->Here's the link to the proposal currently on the ARIN website.
->
->http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_3.html
->
->Personally I'm a little disappointed that the proposal is 
->only to reduce 
->the minimum to /22, though I suppose with all the opposition 
->against doing 
->anything at all it was probably done to find a middle ground.  
->
->My feelings on this personally are that since the current 
->minimum that 
->"the internet" accepts is /24, the micro-assignment policy 
->really should 
->be reduced to /24, especially since LACNIC and APNIC both have 
->micro-allocation policies that have /24 as a minimum.  
->
->Forrest
->
->
->
->
->On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
->
->> 
->> Forrest, 
->> According to one of the ARIN staff members I spoke to
->> said this was still in the works.. But I have not seen 
->> the wording change..
->> Thanks,
->> Jim
->> 
->> Richard? Einar?
->> 
->> 
->> ->
->> ->
->> ->Hi everyone, I was just curious if this proposal is any 
->> ->closer to being 
->> ->approved?  I've noticed that the wording has been changed to 
->> ->reduce the 
->> ->minimum block size to /22 instead of /24.  I haven't seen any 
->> ->discussion 
->> ->on this for awhile.
->> ->
->> ->Forrest
->> ->
->> ->
->> 
->
->-- 
->Visit my Commodore 64 Website
->http://almighty.c64.org/
->
->