[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Steve Rolapp]

>> We deal with a number of clients who have decided to 
>> multi-home -- mainly
>> for redundancy. A number of enterprise managers have expressed
>> concerns about the stability of some providers, and thus want 
>> to announce
>> their own blocks. I would rather see them given a /24 or /23; 
>> otherwise,
>> it is likely they will try to pump their numbers for a /22. 
>> This just wastes
>> addresses.
>
>And what about the on-going viability of all the companies with their
own >Class C????  What makes people think they so much more stable then
the >provider? What happens to the IP space that they have been
allocated when >they go under?
>
>We need to learn from the existing telephone companies.. they have been
>doing this for YEARS and have way more experience then we do; assigning
>numbers, dealing with renumbering issues etc.. that is.
>
>Do you think that the phone companies would allow for everyone to have
>their own phone number and be able to take it with them should they
move? >No.. thought not. Why is that? Think about for a bit.
>

Actually you can.  You have to deal with a clec that will do the
paperwork (most are happy to).  This is a part of the telecommunications
act that the ilec's want voided.  I wonder why? :)

>Maybe instead of looking for the 'quick' fix (allow companies their own
>/24), we should be looking at the 'right' fix (how can we make
renumbering >a snap).
>
>By making renumbering a very easy process, you actually will create a
>benefit that is more usable to more people then allowing a wholesale
'open >season' on getting IP space.

The actual renumbering is only part of the issue.  There is the time to
get new numbering which differs by providers and time, during which
there are potential business losses, there are licensing issues with
certain devices like firewalls and so on.  These issues can not be
addressed by ARIN except by allowing an organization to "own" its IP
block.

Steve Rolapp