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

[McBurnett, Jim]

Einar, et al.
Who says a customer HAS to go to ARIN for the MicroAllocation?
IT WAS NEVER MANDATED..
I have a /24, and I am Multihomed.
My Block came from a Larger Carrier block.
It took the Carrier 2 weeks to have the Block stripped from
the ACL's on their BGP filters and from the BGP filters from their providers.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Einar Bohlin [mailto:einar.bohlin at mci.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:54 AM
>To: william at elan.net
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] FYI: LACNIC micro-allocation policy approved and
>implemented
>
>
>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.

Of Course it has been awhile, why beat your head against the wall?

>
>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.

Well, that is the risk you take. Like William said, ARIN VOTED for it
and THE AC went thier own way...



>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.

And what about those hundreds of customers that got nets from the 
DOT BOMB ISPs?



>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


HMMM MCI-- Well From my standpoint it is the Backbone providers
than can prevent the /24 from being routeable due to non-annoucement 
because of any number of excuses... IE Route table growth...
Does this mean you have $$ reasons to say no?

IMHO  There is some point you have to cut the strings...


J






>
>
>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)
> 
>