[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignmentwith sponsorship

Marla Azinger marla_azinger at eli.net
Fri Feb 28 13:57:35 EST 2003

ok..I'm going to be short and to the point here...

If all I have to do is admit we multihome with someone...then fine.
However, some of the prior suggestions to this proposal appear to be adding
on resposibility and work to the "upstream providers" with the word
"sponsorship". I dont want to support anything that creates unnecessary
"upstream provider" paperwork, followups and downtime.  I have enough
keeping me buisy with all the current sensible/practical policies.


The point is to have a way to issue microallocations only to multihomed
orgs with a process that allows the ISPs to have a defined procedure for
working with ARIN on it and preserves the integrity of the system.

By requiring an ORG that wants a microallocation to have two ISP sponsors,
ARIN can guarantee that the ORG is multihomed.  The ISPs that sponsor it
are saying that they are providing connectivity to the ORG.  I don't see
where this is much more of a headache to an ISP than having a multihomed
customer in the first place.  However, any ISP would certainly be free to
decline business and refuse to sponsore ORGs that wanted to pay them to
provide transit to their multihomed network.


--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 8:44 AM -0800 Marla Azinger
<marla_azinger at eli.net> 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