[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[Jeff S Wheeler]

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 00:26, Forrest wrote:
> I think ARIN doing audits on the space periodically and/or doing checks 
> when you pay your renewal fee would be a lot more reliable than hoping 
> that an upstream would notify ARIN if you ceased being their customer.  
I think the idea that the ARIN periodically audit micro-allocations is
utterly unrealistic.  In my experience they barely have the manpower and
organizational capabilities to keep up with their current duties, even
with a large budget excess.  Do you expect the ARIN to suddenly increase
headcount to accomodate an audit process for an allocation policy that
it evidently does not want to see implemented in the first place?

I must agree with Einar Bohlin's position that nearly every organization
who registers an ASN does indeed want their own provider-independent
space.  Mine most certainly does, and I don't mean a /24.  My company
can easily justify allocation of a /22 under current IPv4 allocation
guidelines, and could grow into a /21 easily.  There is simply no
procedure for issuing such long allocations.

Sadly, the practice of submitting false documentation to the ARIN with
the intent of reaching the minimum allocation size is very common. 
Anyone who does not know that is wholely out of touch with small ISPs
and mid-size corporate Internet users.

In the current environment, it seems that the ARIN membership must be
very accepting of folks lieing to get their provider-independent /20,
even if they could get by with a longer allocation for a year or more. 
Either that, or organizationally, policy changes cannot be dedided upon
and implemented by the ARIN in a business-like timeframe, so everyone is
forced to turn a blind eye to this space-wasting practice.

--
Jeff S Wheeler