[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments forMultihome d Networks

Forrest forrest at almighty.c64.org
Fri Aug 22 16:45:29 EDT 2003

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Bill Darte wrote:

> > No, I would argue we should go right to /24 now, let the industry deal
> > with whatever problems come up, and in two years look at how we did.
> Sorry, can't support that.... we would do the 'invisible constituency' a
> disservice to assign addresses
> that are unusable.
> Bill Darte
> ARIN Advisory Council 

I tend to agree, it's pretty pointless to dole out /24's to multihomed 
organizations if nobody is going to accept the routes.  A /22 minimum 
seems to be logical in that I haven't seen any providers filtering out 
routes shorter than or equal to /22.  A micro-allocation policy ultimately 
requires buy-in from all of the people that will be accepting the routes.  

On a side note, I see in the minutes from the May 8, 2003 Advisory Council 
Meeting that it was suggested that APNIC and LACNIC both be contacted to 
find out how their micro-allocation policies are working out for them.  
Does anyone know if that's been done, and if so what the results were? 

Here's a link to those meeting minutes.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list