[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 21 00:14:56 EDT 2005



--On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:43 PM -0600 Randy Lindsey
<RLindsey at coinfotech.com> wrote:

>> We need to come up with a criteria for PI space that will constrain 
>> the recipient pool to a reasonably small set of large institutions, 
>> i.e. those who will be multi-homing and for whom renumbering would be 
>> a major and painful task.
> 
> Not only large institutions find it painful and expensive to renumber.
> Small ISP's take just as long, and relative to their size the expense is
> as great or greater than for a large one.  Remember staff resources are
> proportional to size of the organization.  Years ago it took my small
> ISP months to migrate from one provider's /21 to another provider.
> 
However, small ISPs can already qualify for a /32 under existing policy,
so, ISPs are not the issue for this policy.  This policy provides for
assignment only and does not address allocation.

> The current IPv4 minimum of a /19 or /20 is already tough for small
> ISP's to reach and eliminates nearly all end-user organizations (in the
> larger context of millions of end-user organizations).  I think the IPv6
> limit should target the same size of organization as the current IPv4
> limit does.  If I multi-home and can qualify for a PI block under IPv4,
> I should be able to get one in IPv6 too.
> 
The current IPv4 minimum is /22.  Has been for about a year now.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050420/e200e057/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list