[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[Steve Rolapp]

This sounds like a positive proposal.  This has some addition benefits.

  5.  In the event an org discontinues service, the ISP can notify 
      ARIN.  In the event the org does not get a new sponsor, ARIN
      can notify the other sponsor that the assignment is no longer 
      valid.  This should take care of the issue some have that an
      org could get an assignment and then stop multihoming.

  6.  I disagree that getting small IP blocks is hampered by this.
      The sponsors would have to agree to announce the block and the
      block could be smaller then a /24 thus conserving the address 
      pool.  Since the block may not be contiguous with other blocks,
      there is no aggregation possible and both sponsors would be 
      announcing the block to the world.

An issue is that ISPs would have to agree to this. But if there can be a
financial benefit to them then of course they would do it.  Some would
sign on to gain the competitive advantage and the others would probably
follow.

Steve Rolapp


> -----Original Message-----
> From: william at elan.net [mailto:william at elan.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:09 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ppml 2002-7
> 
> What do you think about doing this different then what is in 2002-7
and
> instead of lowering minimimum allocation/assignment and having company
> become new full member, doing this with special policy and special
> associate membership. We can do it so that to get this membership
company
> would need to have two ARIN full members sponsor it (i.e. its two
> upstreams) and would not be able to go directly to ARIN but would need
to
> have one of sponsors come to ARIN and request this ip block on their
> behalf. This has the following advantages over current proposal:
>   1. ARIN is not put in the position of having to verify multihoming,
>   having two sponsors makes sure of that.
>   2. Presumably existing arin members would filter out some companies
that
>   really do not need this separate ip block and make sure and make
sure
>   that some technical requirements exist for the assignment.
>   3. It is still possible for company that got this associative
membership
>   to move to another isp and keep the ip block, but they would need to
>   make sure their new isp is willing to sponsor them.
>   4. ARIN has records on who sponsors are and in case of billing
problems
>   or if it receives reports that address or some other whois info is
not
>   kept up to date, it can ask for assistance of their sponsors to get
in
>   touch with right people.
> 
> I do realize this would be kind of compromise and it would not be as
easy
> to get small ip block as some would like but on the other hand I
believe
> some of the current proponents (like large ISPs who are worried about
> loosing control of ip assignments) may support this and it might be
> good as compromise between different positions.
> 
> Please comment on above and if you think this is a good idea, I'll
write
> up official proposal.
> 
> ----
> William Leibzon
> Elan Communications
> william at elan.net