[ppml] 2001-2 Revisited (and 2002-3 too ;)
ddiller at cogentco.com
Thu Mar 11 13:37:40 EST 2004
> How does this better than 2002-3, which was approved (albeit in amended
> form) ? The intent for 2002-3 was that you would get a /24
> _from ARIN_, which IMHO is better than from your upstream.
> Now, it was changed to a /22, and I haven't submitted my proposal yet
> (so I don't know if it has ever been exercised), but given 2002-3, why
> do we need 2001-2 ?
By my read, 2002-3 won't work for someone who can only justify a handful of IPs
at each of several sites. It requires the same justification as any other
request for IPs from ARIN, just with different bit boundaries. No multihoming
special-case caveats like 2001-2.
Speaking of 2002-3, how will it be put into practice? There seem to be two
ways it could play out:
* Current MH policy is "Used a /21? Here's a /20". 2002-3 could simply be
shifting that two bits to "Used a /23? Here's a /22".
* Single-homed policy is "Used a /20? Here's a /20". 2002-3 could both move
the bits down as well as unify the policies.
It dsoesn't say which of the two wil be put into play - whether the /21-->/20
is an integral part of the MH policy concept or simply a now-outmoded
exception. At risk of steering the topic astray, clarification on the
mechanics would be useful.
More information about the ARIN-PPML