[ppml] ppml 2002-7

[william at elan.net]

> > 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) 
> It took me nearly a month to get the right people at one provider
> to agree they would multi-home. How long would it take to get 2 
> providers to agree to this. I am sure we have some IP Admin's from large 
> ISP's on here.. COMMENTS??
Most agree that having separate ip block only makes sence if you're 
multihomed, otherwise you'd be polluting bgp table with all the small 
blocks one could get. If you plan to multihome you'd have to get in 
touch with right people at each of your upstream provider's anyway to 
setup bgp, these techs are either ones handling arin requests already or 
they would know for sure who is and would assist in sponsorship requests.

> >   1. ARIN is not put in the position of having to verify multihoming,
> >   having two sponsors makes sure of that.
> Have you ever filled out an ASN request? 
I filled out about 10 ASN requests for my company and several companies I 
consult and well familiar with the process as well as the process to get 
an ip block (my company has two /19s and I also helped two other companies 
to get /20s). It may not be easy for somebody "new" but really ASN 
requests are not that hard if you're technically familar with what is 
asked there and if somebody does not know how to do ASN request, they 
probably would not know how to setup BGP and would not be able to setup
multihoming or go through more complex request to get ip block so
having done an ASN request would be kindof automatic requirement for this 
sponsorship membership anyway.

However when request comes from the "sponsor" or both of them, ARIN would 
already know that client has discussed their need for separate ip block 
with their upstream and they agree that this is needed. It can come 
directly from the company as well but ARIN would have to do agressive 
verification that upstreams agreed to be sponsors. This is different then 
what ARIN does currently as it does not try to verify upstreams for ASN 
and just keeps what you send in their records and never uses it.

> If no, take a look at the form. You have to have two peer ASNs to 
> properly mult-home. Sure an upstream may let 
> send them a private, but......
> 
> >   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. 
> yea, and are these the same folks that should make sure X user does not
> get 128 IP addresses to host 38 domain webpages?
If ISP is full member of ARIN they know difficulties of getting 
additional ips and justifications required for that, so hopefully such 
cases as 128 ips for 38 domains would not be allowed by them. However 
this does not mean ISP would be sole judge of the ip request, they would 
be just "first filter" and afterwards ARIN would still need to verify the 
the client would need the space. And you have to remember, /24 is the 
stanard minimum for ip allocation for multihomed customer, this due to 
many ISPs filtering announcements which are smaller then /24.

> >   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. 
> This could fall back to the same kinds of diffuculty.
> The policy would only work if ALL ISP's played well togather...
I believe that getting sponsorship when moving to new ISP would be almost 
automatic, I don't think this would be much opposed by ISPs - they do not 
need to do much more then just confirmation email as most difficulty in 
actually getting the block has already been done before. Besides that ISP 
would know that since client already has the ip block and hence considers
renumbering to be extemely difficult then if they do not sponsor them, 
they would loose this potential client and client would probably find 
somebody else.

> >   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. 
> This is really good. If I don't know how to contact a customer I
> send a bill to every month, boy would that be dumb..
> Just as long as the ISP plays well.. You might learn a little about
> pain in the rear ISPs on the SPAM-L list... ISPs that are a haven for
> SPAMMERS, careless about blacklists, so they may care even less on 
> this..
> Bottom line is: UNTIL ARIN gets some real abilities to slap 
> penalties of some kind on ISPs and end users, a lot of people 
> won't care..
ARIN actions & penalties for not maintaing proper records should be 
discussed as separate proposal and not be linked to this one.

The reason I mentioned #4 is that some who oppose allocation of small 
blocks are afraid that smaller companies that want these blocks would be 
less stable, more likely to change their address (difficult to get in 
touch with based on whois info if it is absolute) and create more 
difficulty for ARIN to collect the money from them. Plus many are afraid 
that these small ip blocks maybe used by companies that are engaged in 
questionable activities and just want to get new ip block as the ones 
they may have from somewhere else do not work for them anymore due to 
filtering by other isps. Having sponsors who know exactly who they deal 
with would help in trying to keep good records for arin and everybody else.

> > 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.
NOTE: I made a mistake above, I meant some "opponents" may support this 
policy if they are able to have some say on if their client can get an 
ip block.

> > Please comment on above and if you think this is a good idea, 
> > I'll write 
> > up official proposal.
> 
> Overall, I like this..especially #4..
> Don't take me as overly critical, I am just trying to cover every base..
> And no I am not that rententive, just to much time justifing all I do...
> 
> later,
> j