[ppml] 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

[Forrest]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Member Services wrote:

> New text:
>   If an end-user is not multi-homed, the minimum block of IP
>   address space assigned by ARIN is a /20. If assignments 
>   smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their 
>   upstream provider.
> 
>   If an end-user is multi-homed, and has an ARIN assigned
>   ASN, the minimum block of IP address space assigned by
>   ARIN is a /22.  If assignments smaller than a /22 are
>   needed, end users should contact their upstream provider.



I'm not sure I see the point in reducing the minimum allocation from /20 
to /22.  Are people going to come back 3 years from now and want the 
proposal changed again to make the minimum /24?  One of the arguments for 
changing the minimum allocation is that people currently lie about their 
needs and uses in order to qualify for a /20.  I think with this proposal, 
people that could get by with a /24 are going to find creative ways to 
waste addresses to qualify for a /22.  Whether someone receives a /24 or a 
/22, its only one added prefix to the global routing tables, so why not 
give people what they REALLY need and conserve IP space.

I strongly feel there needs to be a mechanism added that enables IP space 
to be reclaimed if an organization ceases to be multihomed.  

Is it possible for someone to tack on all of the discussion from 2002-7 
onto this proposal.  No need to rehash everything that's already been 
said.  

Forrest


> 
> Problem Summary:
>   Many end-user organizations are choosing to multi-home
>   for reliability reasons.  At the same time, many are
>   using technologies such as NAT, or load balancers that
>   reduce the need for external IP space.  These groups
>   are forced today to take one of two actions:
> 
>      1) Use IP space from one of their upstreams on both
>         connections.  This can lead to load balancing
>         issues, and also makes the end-user more dependent
>         on the ISP who assigned the space.  The ISP's
>         business problems, for instance could force downtime
>         and/or renumbering.
> 
>      2) "Waste" address space (often by not using the 
>         technologies that conserve it) in order to qualify
>         for a /20 under the current policy.
> 
>         In order to allow people to both conserve address
>         space, and reap the benefits of multi-homing the
>         minimum size assignment for those who do multi-home
>         should be made smaller.
>