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

[Forrest]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> --On Friday, February 28, 2003 9:03 AM -0600 Forrest 
> <forrest at almighty.c64.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > So basically what you're saying then is that to "deserve" to be
> > multihomed  and be reatchable, you must be a large company/ISP/whatever.
> > Screw the  little guy, we didn't need to talk to him anyway.  Where
> > exactly do you  draw the line?  Why not take it a step further and just
> > filter out  everything longer than an /8 in the old Class A space.  Hey,
> > who needs to  hear your /16 announcement out of the 12.0.0.0/8 block
> > anyway.  AT&T has  the entire /8 so you'll still be reachable.  In fact,
> > lets just change the  minimum allocation to /8 and then we'll never have
> > to worry about routing  table growth ever again.
> 
> I really hate it when people put words into my mouth.
> 
> I am all for making things as easy as reasonably possible, and the current 
> ARIN multi-homing policy I see as quite reasonable.  If you can fully 
> utilize a /21, you will be allocated a /20.  Many entities have made use of 
> it quite successfully.  Perhaps we should look at modifying that policy 
> slightly, perhaps by only requiring people to fully utilize a /22 in order 
> to get a /20 (this is just a strawman).
> 
> The 'you hate small business' argument is a popular one, because it puts 
> whoever you are opposing on very dangerous footing with really no graceful 
> way out.  Just so everybody knows, my company is a small company, so 
> suggesting that I am somehow against small companies is rather comical.
> 


I'm not saying you hate small business and I'm sorry I put words in your 
mouth, I'm definitely not looking to pick a fight on this issue.  I'm just 
saying the current allocation policy is definitely slanted against small 
businesses, and most of the reasons listed in 2002-7 are valid in my 
opinion.  

I doubt giving people a /20 if they can utilize a /22 will do much of 
anything.  I don't have any documentation to back up my argument 
obviously, but if some of the web hosting companies that I've seen are 
any indication I would guess that alot of the people receiving a /20 
currently could definitely get by with a much smaller allocation, and have 
found "creative" ways to show utilization in order to get a portable 
allocation.  

I guess my whole beef with the routing table explosion argument is this.  
There's no consensus that there even would be a large explosion in the 
routing table if a micro allocation for multihomers policy was approved.  

Forrest