[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Trevor Paquette]

> be more than plenty.  You only have to look at some of these 
> web hosting 
> companies to see evidence of wasting IP addresses.  I've seen 
> a whole /25 
> assigned to ONE single webserver before, even when virtual 
> hosting would 
> have worked just fine.  

This is the fault of the ISP.. that space should have been pulled back.. does not meet 25% immediate use.. my thought.

> I don't see anything necessarily bad with a new swamp if all of the 
> addresses in it are used to multihome.  It would be silly to 
> assign a /24 
> to someone that only connects to one provider, since you 

The point that people who want it policy to be approved is just opposite that.. they WANT the ability to use their own assigned Class C and go anywhere with it; even if it is only one upstream ISP and even if they only use 3 IPs out of the entire block.

They feel that they are being held "hostage" by their ISP; and that renumbering is "too difficult".. guess what.. get over it.

1) If you don't like the charging policy of your ISP, find another. This is a capitalist society, buyer beware and all that.

2) Renumbering happens, deal with it. It's a fact of life and part of working with networks.

People change phone numbers.. people can change IPs. LNP (Local Number Portability) with the phone systems allow you to keep your same phone number if you move within the same area code (same ISP Networks); if you move to a different area code you get a new phone number..  (whine whine whine.. I have to change phone numbers.. I have to get new business cards...  I have to renumber my phone systems...)

Think of changing ISPs as changing area codes.. it happens. Renumbering is part of doing business and should be factored in to your costs of doing business. When we can all finally accept this fact, we'll all be able to get on with our jobs.

My opinion is that if this policy is passed, there will be a massive land rush for IP space.. with more then 75% of the IPs be unused. Just folks who want their own space cause they can get it.. and let's not even get into the greymarket reselling of these subnets; it can, does and will happen.

> could just give 
> them a /24 from the provider's larger aggregate.  If you quit 
> multihoming, 
> you return your addresses back to the "multihome swamp".  
> This would allow 
> providers to filter out the useless /24's (like the /18 being 
> announced as 
> 64 /24's, yet allow them to accept somewhat more important small 
> multihoming blocks).
> 
> Forrest

Ahh.. see here is the one of the keys to the fault of this policy.. there is no clear reclamation process. The policy is totally without merit until 'exact' criteria is outlined on how you can qualify for space, retain that space on an ongoing timeframe, and how that space is reclaimed.