[ppml] RE: ppml 2007 (was blank)

[Owen DeLong]

Since we're starting to split really fine hairs (hares? poor bunnies)...

How do you even plan to identify, let alone enforce the ORG limit, when
all the orgs would have to do is simply continue to function/interact
with ARIN as multiple ORGs.  Heck, under existing policies, one ORG
where I worked turned themselves into multiple ARIN customers just to
simplify the process of getting the address space they needed for rational
localization of IP blocks.  How do you expect ARIN to identify that the
ORGs should be considered a single ORG.  How do you identify a single
ORG vs. multiple ORGs.  Is a subsidiary an ORG, or does the parent company
have to be involved in ALL IP issues for the subsidiary?  Would American
Airlines be able to get IP space for the airline, or would AMR have to
handle all IP space for American, AMR Combs FBOs, and the various oher
AMR companies?  Sorry, the whole issue of 1 block per ORG just doesn't
work out in the long run, because there's no way to identify an ORG.

Owen


--On Friday, February 14, 2003 11:43 AM -0700 Steve Rolapp 
<steve at rovingplanet.com> wrote:

>
> Comments below.
>
> Steve Rolapp
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: McBurnett, Jim [mailto:jmcburnett at msmgmt.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:21 AM
>> To: Steve Rolapp; ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: RE:
>>
>>
>> > The issue of a fixed block size bothers me.  I have noted that
> comments
>> > seem to set the lower limit to a /24.  For an organization
>> > that does not
>> > provide hosting services to others, that size should be overkill in a
>> > world that requires organizations to have the core network NATed for
> a
>> > sensible security.  If you look at the BGP routing tables, you will
>> > indeed find /25-/27 out there.  Whether an organization pulls
>> > a /24 or a
>> > /27, its out on the net.  Follow the heart of the idea on cidr to
> this
>> > also.
>>
>> OKay, I agree that a /24 is overkill... BUT some ISPs will filter
>> small blocks I have seen it.  CIDR is great, but some filter that
> too..
>
> This isn't to say that won't happen.  Every ISP can make their own
> decisions but they have to live with those when their customers
> complain.  If it becomes known that an ISP has decided to not listen to
> these routes and people can't get there, their customers will leave.
> Competition will drive this.  I have personal experience in showing
> companies that are blackholing routes.  It always gets fixed.
>
>> > Organizations can not be assigned more then one block.  Mergers of
>> > companies that are each assigned a block must relinquish one
>> > in 180 days
>> > of the completed merger.  Failure to do so voids both blocks and ASs.
>>
>> This won't work.  Company A merges with Company B. Offices in Canada
> and
>> the US.
>> Large research facility in W city and corp HQ in X City with
>> Manufactuering Plants
>> in Y and Z Cities. If more than 1 office is so critical they need to
>> Multi-home,
>> this would prevent that if they are using /24s or they have to
> renumber
>> for a
>> /23....
>
> Lets take the assumption that the merger happened such that A had three
> of those offices and B had one. If a /24 was the min then A would have
> needed a /22 leaving an unused /24 for the merger.
>
> Lets take the assumption that they each have two offices.  This is the
> sticking point. They each have a /23.  As I read 2002-7, an org could
> have only one block.  That means they must give up both unless they can
> get an a joining block for one of them.  Bad news but it's the price of
> business.
>
> I'm not really that cold.  This goes back to the issue of block size.
> Unless these companies are all hosting providers, which precludes them
> anyway, the address space we are talking about is overkill.  Two real
> issues ensue. Can one of the existing blocks be subnetted to accomidate
> the needs or has the org grown to the point it needs a bigger address
> space (an issue without a merger).
>
> In both cases there is a forced need to re-architect the IP space.  But
> this really is part of business and it can be managed.  The sudden loss
> of a provider and the IP space from them is not.
>
>> > Multihoming is not cheap.  I will get hate mail for this probably but
>> > the proposed fees are too low.  Make sure that those doing
>> > this have the
>> > resources to keep it going and ARIN has the resources to take it
> away.
>> > Failure to pay fees in a timely manner are grounds for voiding the
>> > space.
>> YES, it is not cheap.  But the whole point is to make it easier for
> the
>> small-mid sized companies to multi-home. So you think ARIN and other
> RIR's
>> should become the finance police in a sense to prevent the fly by
> night
>> from
>> becoming multi-homed and going under? If a company is that stupid, let
> em.
>> And then Let ARIN or Other RIR make the money for the extra
> assignments.
>> Failure to pay is always that way though...
>
> I am not saying set an artificially high price but ARIN does need to be
> responsible for getting the space back whether it be with help from the
> ISP's or the courts.  That does have a cost and what was given appeared
> to not take that into account.
>
>> Taking it away how ? ARIN can't change a routing table.
>> ARIN would need help from every backbone provider to do this..
>
> Agreed.  IETF would need to be involved such that part of the next rev
> of BGP might include valid AS and IP blocks that's fed from the RIR's.
> I didn't say it could happen over night but instead said lets start
> working towards it.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>> > The issue here shouldn't be whether to do this but instead how to
>> > proceed.  This is a needed solution that needs to be implemented.
>> >
>> I agree here... We need to discuss all options.
>>
>> Jim