[ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics

Loevner, Michael mloevner at gnilink.net
Mon Nov 15 17:16:26 EST 2004


The meeting coming up in April will still leave less than a year since
the implementation of this policy (May 17th, 2003).  I agree with Jim
that in the world of ARIN policy, news spreads to the little guys very

IMO, we should wait until a year has passed until we evaluate this
policy further and can truly understand the impact.  The April meeting
is too early to consider a further reduction of the minimum allocation
size for multi-homed organizations unless something happens between now
and then that really spreads the word to smaller network operators.  I
do agree that we should be presented with statistics on these
allocations in April.  I think the statistics should be broken down on a
monthly basis so we can see any trends in the number of allocations
throughout the time period that the policy has been in effect.

If there does end up being a change in the policy, I think we should go
one bit at a time and continue to gauge the effect of the reduction.
Also, these allocations should still be restricted to multi-homed


Mike Loevner
IP Administrator
Verizon Internet Services 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 4:54 PM
To: Bill Darte; Owen DeLong; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN 2002-3 statistics

> First, doesn't look like a significant impact, but again, it
> has only been 6 months...has 'word' gotten out that the 
> boundary was changed?...I don't know.

In my part of the world--- 2 service providers and 3 of my customers
	did not know.. (all that we asked) One customer currently has 
	3 Class C's from 2 providers...(yeah, this is a bad one)
	All 3 of those enterprise customers are now considering the

> It has been our announced commitment on the AC to revisit
> this boundary after impact assessment.
> So...to the community this email reaches...
> 1.  Has there been sufficient time to devoted to the impact?

Personnally, I think it should wait 1 calender year.....
6 months is barely enough time to consider.

> 2.  Are the statistics below adequate to assess impact or are
> others needed (suggest)?

I think we should wait, maybe someone on the AC should write And article
to Network World or something, and start the land rush.

> 3.  Should the Advisory Council entertain a boundary change
> policy proposal for the Spring meeting?

YES, put it on the calender and then see what the membership and PPML

> 4.  In the event that 4 is answered in the affirmative, is
> the boundary change a single or mulitiple bits?..and...who 
> would be the target for such policy change (e.g. only 
> multi-homed nets)?

I think it should be changed to read:
Multi-homed networks will be assigned /22, /23 or /24 allocations based
on Utilization and needs in-line with other allocations and assignments
covered in 
Other policies...


> Your input to these questions and in other areas you thing
> relevant are appreciated.
> Bill Darte
> ARIN Advisory Council
> 314 935-7575

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list