[ppml] FYI: LACNIC micro-allocation policy approved and implemented

[william at elan.net]

I did not understand the part about not getting full routing table. What 
difference does it make if they have their own ip block or part of yours?
Do you not send your full routing table to your isp customers who have  
their own blocks???

As far as customers asking for them, most know they can not get ip blocks 
directly and don't ask about it in the first place ... In fact those who 
are asking about micro-assignments are the companies that also already 
know they can not get it and they are trying to make a point about 
necessity of change. If micro-assignment policy was approved it would be 
up to every company to decide if they want to get ip block from your 
company and haveto renumber in case your service to them is not 
satisfactory or if they want to have their own portable block. Every 
company would make right choice for themselve I'm sure.

As far as routing problems - these are rare even now for old ip blocks so 
its more matter of having ISPs not filter on /20 for particular class-A
which is the point I made several times before about necessity of having 
all mico-assignments and allocations done from very distint class-a blocks

As far as ipv6, yes we need to push for it deployment faster but lets not 
forget about needs of current ipv4 network that everybody is using and 
will probably continue to use for at least next 10 years. And for ipv6
micro-assignment will happen too, but there are so many ips there that its 
not such a big thing there, the comparison you make is not that good I think.
And for that matter we do have RIPE, APNIC all doing micro-assignments in ipv4
and they are deploying ipv6 quite a bit more then we're here in US so 
obviously its not a problem for them.

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Einar Bohlin wrote:

> Part of me says this could be interesting to allow
> to happen and watch the results.  But I have think
> about the customers.  I deal with a lot of them.  And the
> overwhelming majority of them do not mind or complain about
> getting nets from us, especially since those nets work just
> fine.  The last time a customer wanted to get their own
> "Class C" from the registry was in 2000 or 2001. This
> includes multihomed customers.
> 
> I think it would be awful for them to consider getting
> nets directly from ARIN.  And it would be even worse for
> them to get nets and subsequently have routing problems that
> we'd have to explain.  And then we'd probably have to renumber these
> guys into our nets anyway for them to get the full routing that
> they want and expect to get.
> 
> It'd be a great disservice to endusers to lead them to ARIN 
> to get nets that are sure to have have routing problems.
> 
> Today endusers have thankfully gotten used to getting their
> nets from their providers.  Assuming we eventually move
> to v6, that won't change.
> 
> I'm open to change, but why change this now?  To me this
> is a giant step backwards.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Einar Bohlin, IP Analyst
> IP Team - Ashburn Virginia - MCI/UUNET
> 703 886-7362 (VNET 806-7362)
> einar.bohlin at mci.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
> 
> > From http://lacnic.net/Micro_Asignacion_ipv4_UF_ENG.PDF :
> > 
> > "Micro allocations IPv4 to final users:
> > LACNIC shall micro allocate blocks to end users who prove
> > -Be multi-homed organizations. It is possible to request micro
> > allocation to those users that are to be multi-homed within a month. In
> > this case contract copies should be provided.
> > -(*) Have a sub allocation of a /25 block from it's providers.
> > - Agree to renumber all the assigned blocks within a period of 3
> > months and return all sub allocated space to its original providers.
> > -Provide the subnetworking plans for the next 12 months, including
> > sub-net masks and host numbers on each subnet. Use of VLSM is required.
> > - Description of network topology.
> > - Description of network routing plans including routing protocols to
> > be used and any existing limitations.
> > The minimum block to be allocated will be /24 and the maximum /21. For
> > larger allocations existing policies should be applied. For additional
> > allocations existing policies should be applied.
> > REMARKS: An organization is multi-homed if it receives full-time
> > connectivity from more than one provider, each of them independent from
> > the other. Independent providers are those who provide connectivity
> > independently from the other provider."
> > 
> > For ratification information see http://lacnic.net/en/ratification.html
> > - because the policy is so important to lacnic community LACNIC has 
> > decided for IMMEDIATE implementation of this policy starting May 19th.
> > 
> > Its interesting how this was one of the first policies they approved since 
> > they became independent from ARIN and it took them less then year to do this.
> > And BTW congratulations to ARIN for again becoming the only RIR that does 
> > not have general end-user micro-assignment/allocation policy!
> > 
> > So are we going to wait for now AfriNIC recognition and only then setup 
> > microassignment policy or should we join every other RIR and (in the 
> > spirit of creating unified policies and procedures for all RIRs) actually 
> > adapt an micro-assignment policy - it has been discussed long enough by 
> > now - 10 times longer then at LACNIC for sure :) 
> > 
> > In fact at the last meeting the proposal for micro-assignment policy 2002-3
> > has been presented and afterwards in the vote that followed (vote = show 
> > of hands) an overwhelming majority (something like 10:1 for) have expressed
> > their support in having ARIN adapt such a micro-assignment policy.
> > 
> > So would everybody here like to know what happened and how Advisory Counsil
> > reacted to the vote and to above proposal? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway...
> > 
> > Apparently AC decided that ARIN is not ready to assign even /22 blocks to
> > end users (we aren't like other RIRs you know ...) instead they decided to 
> > completely abandon the policy 2002-3 (!!! After almost full consensus at 
> > the meeting !!!)
> > 
> > Instead AC proposed their own ideas, such as that the current policy where
> > multihomed company that has utilized /22 can request /20 be modified so as 
> > to instead such a company would receive /21 and that this be considered a 
> > micro-assignment to satisify those who want ARIN to do micro-assignments.
> > So let me summarize again - if AC proposal goes through instead of receiving
> > /20 same qualifying companies would instead receive smaller /21 block (!!!)
> > 
> > Consider the above situation carefully when you're voting for next AC (maybe we
> > should just invite LACNIC back into ARIN and vote only lacnic members into AC
> > - they sure know how to get popular proposals approved and implemented fast!).
> > 
> > But since we cant really bring lacnic people and companies back and I do not
> > have much faith that AC would change that much, I would ask you to consider
> > even more the actual proposals that would be presented at the next meeting.
> > I would not be surprised if micro-assignment proposal is back and then it 
> > would be an interesting challenge for BoT to deny a proposal supported at 
> > multiple ARIN meeting and by general public, especially since it seems by
> > next meeting BoT would have legal way of approving a proposal even without 
> > support of AC.
> > 
> > ----
> > William Leibzon
> > (yours truly ppml subsriber who is also at anuncios#lacnic.net list and is 
> >  trying to keep you well informed about important policies announced there
> >  in the spirit of all RIRs having generally unified policies, of course)
> > 
> >