[ppml] ppml 2002-7

Steve Rolapp steve at rovingplanet.com
Tue Feb 11 11:50:04 EST 2003


I would like to thank those that brought this matter forward and
apologize for commenting so late on the issue. I just found out about
this proposal since it is buried in the ARIN site.  As someone that has
helped companies establish multihomed networks, I have seen the need for
this for a long time. I reviewed the email listing to see what issue
this would raise and found that none of the objections were really
credible.

 

There is little credible engineering reason to deny allowing an
organization to own a small public block.  I have not seen any research
done that would suggest that doing this would impact routing table size.

 

Business today really requires that companies have solid Internet
connectivity.  Companies understand that their email, informational and
e-commerce sites need to be available.  Hosting is not the slam dunk
decision anymore and many companies are keeping or bringing back their
internet apps on site using multihomed networks.  This is what is
driving the table growth.

 

While the provider that gives a block to an organization can aggregate
the announcement from its network, that is not the case with the other
provider(s) that the site is connected to. Thus outside the connecting
providers, the table has grown when the site goes live.  What is the
difference if the block was sold by one provider or ARIN?

 

As for the block size, the only given reason this is an issue is in
aggregation.  Look at the number of tupples being reported in the last
meeting in Oregon.  50,000+ in the /24 block.  Where is the aggregation?
Its not there because the idea of aggregation appears to be a fallacy.
There is no reason to keep an artificially high block size other then
keep money going to large companies that can afford to buy large blocks
for resale.

 

In fact I would bet that ARIN could pull back even more numbers if more
providers would announce smaller blocks then /24.  Most organizations
really need fewer then 64 public addresses now since the rest of their
networks use non routable address space and reside behind firewalls.
That means that 3/4 of the IP space those 50,000+ tupples have could
possibly be reused if better support were given.  This wouldn't make the
tables grow just migrate the tupples to smaller blocks.

 

The arguments about links are meaningless.  If a provider is willing to
provide BGP service, it's because someone is willing to pay for it and
only for that reason no matter if the link an OC-192 or a 56k dialup.
It doesn't matter if the block came from ARIN or one of the providers.
The table still grows.

 

>From a business standpoint it makes sense to own a public IP block
especially at this point in time.  Yes, organizations are being hurt by
ISPs that suddenly close their doors.  The hurt is more then just a
renumbering.  It is actual dollars, pesos or whatever currency is used
by that organization.

 

There is software that is VERY expensive that many times must be tied to
a public IP address.  The companies providing this software make it
expensive to re-license systems to another IP or limit the number of
times it can be done (I seen and heard of companies hit more than 3
times in a six month period).  Additionally it takes time to do a
renumber and if the need is sudden, business is lost while arrangements
are made to get space from the other provider, get new licenses,
renumber systems and wait for DNS caches to time out.  Not allowing
smaller block sizes only helps the providers lock in a customer.

 

Why should ARIN care about such matters?  Because ARIN was created to
serve the general public's need for addressing not the business desires
of a few companies that wish to monopolize this limited commodity.

 

Thank you,

 

Steve Rolapp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20030211/57699111/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list