[ppml] Policy Revision Proposal

[Mury]

Phil,

I certainly understand the pain of renumbering.  I've had to do it half a
dozen times... at least.  It's certainly not as easy as some people claim.
Renumbering our own network is a significant task, and coordinating with
customers takes even more time and effort.

It's too late for me to do the math, but if everyone had an unaggregated
/48 the routing tables would beyond what technology, irregardless of
money, could accomodate.

In regards to having customers demanding certain terms in a contract, my
proposed revisions would guarantee you the same IPs until 2007.  I do not
know your business, so I could be wrong, but I know pulling teeth is
easier than getting customers to sign a contract beyond 3 years.  My
proposal gives you almost 4 years.  Most likely beyond a contract length.

As far as setting up dialup pools to be able to justify a /19...

1) Would ARIN give you IP space based on that?  I don't remember that
   being a criteria.
2) If they would, I believe ARIN would give you a /20 not a /19.  Not that
   it matters much.
3) Setting up a dialup pool takes time as well, and money to maintain.
   Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to renumber if the need
   were to arise?

I'm curious though... I went to your website.  You mention that you
provide ISDN, DSL, etc.  Are you reselling someone else's services?  If
not, wouldn't you qualify for a /32 of IPv6 space under my revisions?

Regards,

Mury



> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:12:02PM -0600, Mury wrote:
>
> | I understand your point with d), but I think it's important to honor the
> | goal of keeping routing tables clean, and therefore respectfully disagree.
>
> Then apparently the issue is a technical one involving the (lack of new)
> routing technology that can handle this.  This list is about policy, so
> that's not a topic here.  I fear policy is going to have to work hard to
> compensate for routing that doesn't scale to meet the address space.
>
> It's going to be hard to suggest any other policy to deal with a bad design
> (e.g. the lack of scalable routing in IPv6).
>
>
> | I don't understand your objections to c).  Why do you need to hand out IP
> | space to others from a /48?  If you are handing out IP space the mirco
> | allocation provisions wouldn't even apply to you.  You would be getting a
> | /32.
>
> That's just it.  I don't need to hand out _any_ IP space.  But I can't sign
> certain agreements some customers insist on without a permanent IP space.
> It puts me in a bad position relative to "the big boys".  Someone who can
> justify /32 because they are handing out hundreds of /48's gets to run a
> "side business" that needs a small but permanent address slice.
>
> I have considered doing some hosting of things like dialup servers for no
> purpose others than presenting justification for IPv4/19 so I can get a
> permanent portable allocation.  Otherwise I have no need for more than
> IPv4/24 for the forseeable future.
>
> If my business had started long ago (but what I'm going to be doing really
> had no market back then) I'd probably have one /24 in the 192 swamp.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
> | phil-nospam at ipal.net | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/    |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>