[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
forrest at almighty.c64.org
Fri Feb 28 10:46:21 EST 2003
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 188.8.131.52/8 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
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
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML