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

Mury mury at goldengate.net
Thu Feb 27 12:35:47 EST 2003

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.


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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list