[ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment w ith sponsorship

[william at elan.net]

Is this position taken by UUNET or just your personal opinion?

And you're not necessarily right, I can list you many reasons why somebody 
would want an ASN and not want their own NET. The other way is more clear,
generally ASN should be a prerequisite for netblock but exceptions can 
happen there too.

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Einar Bohlin wrote:

> > If we are to recommend a microallocation policy, I would like to see it
> > linked to the ASN process, since you shouldn't have one without the other.
> 
> Everybody who registers an ASN ultimately wants their
> own net.  An ASN and a net should be a simple ARIN bundled
> service.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
> IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - WorldCom
> Phone: 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
> email: einar.bohlin at wcom.com
> 
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Taylor, Stacy wrote:
> 
> > Hi All, 
> > Speaking for the Office of IP Management for ICG only, I wonder why I would
> > have to do more templates when multihoming information from two ISPs is
> > required on the ASN request template.  Is my ASN not already in fact
> > "sponsoring" the multihomer by including my information on the
> > record/request?  
> > 
> > If the ASN registrant changes one or both of its ISPs, it is for the
> > registrant to update their ARIN record, not the upstreams.
> > 
> > If we are to recommend a microallocation policy, I would like to see it
> > linked to the ASN process, since you shouldn't have one without the other.
> > 
> > Stacy
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:36 AM
> > To: Marla Azinger
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Question RE: Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment
> > with sponsorship
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I've missed most of this discussion too, but it sure seems like it leaves
> > a lot open for abuse, confusion, mistakes, etc.
> > 
> > Why can't ARIN check to make sure they have 2 upstreams by asking for
> > contracts and bills the first time around, and at renewal time check some
> > of the backbone routers to make sure their AS is being announced by two
> > providers.  There are gobs of places that ARIN could check this from that
> > would take 1 minute to do.  If for some reason it doesn't show up in the
> > routing tables, then the ISP could provide bills.  If they can't provide
> > bills proving they have two upstreams, yank the IPs.
> > 
> > Part of me is also against the /24 allocation in the first place.  I know
> > what it feels like, since I was a little irked when I couldn't get space
> > when we started out.  But in the end it wasn't the end of the world.
> > Renumbering out of a /24 isn't a life ending task.  Sure, it sucks, and
> > everyone would rather not do it, but hey almost all of us have had to deal
> > with it and we all made it okay.
> > 
> > If you are multi-homed you need to contact your upstreams to announce the
> > block anyway so it doesn't provide any benefit there.
> > 
> > Sorry to all those who disagree, it's just my two cents.
> > 
> > Mury
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Marla Azinger wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello-  I know I've missed alot of the discussion between the last
> > > conference and up to this point...so please bear with me and the question
> > I
> > > have...
> > >
> > > Why is it necessary for an ISP to "sponsor" this?  So far...sponsorship
> > > sounds like more of a headache than anything...I'm sure I'm missing
> > > something because up to this point...I would just say my company isnt
> > going
> > > to participate in order to avoid...basically...all of it...we'v done fine
> > > without this until now...
> > >
> > > I guess what I'm missing here is...how is a smaller telecom company that
> > > provides internet access supposed to benefit from "sponsoring" this?  Is
> > > there a benefit...or is this a bandaid for integrity issues?  I'm sure
> > > there's a good list of reasons I'm missing...like I said I've missed most
> > of
> > > the discussion up to this point...but could someone provide a short and to
> > > the point list of how we'd benefit from "sponsoring" this?
> > >
> > > Thank you for your patience and time
> > > Marla
> > > ELI IP Analyst
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would rather not see this language. The policy states that ISP A or ISP
> > B
> > > must inform ARIN
> > > when this happens. I know we can't depend on this to work, but if we build
> > > in a backup, why even
> > > ask ISP A or ISP B to inform ARIN of this change?
> > >
> > > Jim
> > > >
> > > > I think some sort of language saying that ARIN will do audits of the
> > > > assignments from time to time is needed.  Or perhaps when you
> > > > pay your
> > > > annual renewal fee, you should have to provide proof along
> > > > with it that
> > > > you are still connected to more than 1 upstream.  Basically
> > > > something that
> > > > will prevent someone from being multihomed today, get a micro
> > > > assignment,
> > > > and then drop their second provider while keeping their micro
> > > > assignment.
> > > >
> > > > Forrest
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'v made a 2nd draft for proposal for ip micro-assignment
> > > > with sponsorship.
> > > > > It does not format well to be posted in the email as text
> > > > but you can
> > > > > review it online at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > http://www.elan.net/~william/arin_proposal_for_micro_assignmen
> > > > ts_with_sponsorship.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have any futher suggestions please feel free to
> > > > email me or otherwise
> > > > > discuss it on this list. If there are no suggestions for
> > > > addition to the
> > > > > current text, this will be the proposal I will send to
> > > > Richard Jimmerson
> > > > > end of this week.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----
> > > > > William Leibzon
> > > > > Elan Communications
> > > > > william at elan.net
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >