[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jun 7 16:21:47 EDT 2007


>
> As the most important side-effect:
> - 1000's of smaller companies, who don't really need a /24,  
> exaggerating
> their need in order
> to get an allocation.. after all, its convenient not to have to
> renumber.... easier than
> planning ahead.
>
1.	I don't think so.
2.	History with the /22 multihoming policy would imply that to be false.
3.	This would only apply to companies willing to spend enough to get
	a router capable of really multihoming with full BGP, etc., so, I think
	most small businesses where internet was not a critical infrastructure
	for their ability to conduct interaction and service to their customers
	would not find this attractive.

> And we would also see:
> - Significant routing table growth - can't argue this one - rather  
> than
> seeing a /18(or larger) from big isp, we're seeing /24's
> - A change in the ISP marketplace where mid/small sized customers all
> become provider agnostic.
> This may be good for you if your a small isp or asp, but its bad  
> for the
> Internet Access
> business as a whole because it makes it very easy for these  
> companies to
> change ISP's.. This
> means that if your a small or mid sized internet service provider
> providing services to a business
> who has their own allocation, big telco can come along any day and say
> here's the same service
> for half the price, and they can have the client up and running in a
> matter of moments..... (this
> as opposed to the current situation where renumbering is often more  
> time
> consuming an expensive)
>
This is pure FUD.  The ability to be provider agnostic is _GREAT_ for  
the
market.  The market can decide who they want to buy service from and
can hold their providers accountable by leaving if the provider stops  
providing
good service or the price becomes non-competitive.

As to the routing table growth, that's FUD, too.  The proposed policy  
only
provided for people that have an ASN and are multihoming.  Those people
are already advertising PA /24s out of their environment, or, will be  
anyway,
so, there's no net change to the routing table.

>
> We were in your shoes a number of years ago, as a small ISP trying to
> get an allocation, and I appreciate
> the realities of your situation. But on the other hand, what you are
> proposing has serious implications
> for the entire industry, and I for one, would like to keep things
> exactly the way they are.
>
The proposed policy does not apply to ISPs.  If you are an ISP, you need
reassignable space and a /24 won't cut it anyway.  Currently, the  
minimum
for an ISP is a /20 based on using at least half of a /21 if memory  
serves.
The proposal in question was aimed at multihomed end user organizations.
I'm aware that most mid-size or larger ISPs would like to keep things  
the
way they are.  Afterall, as you pointed out, while provider agnosticism
is good for the customers, it's potentially uncomfortable for some ISPs
because they worry about their customers switching on them.  Oh well...
That's called a free market.  If protectionism is the only argument you
have besides FUD in favor of keeping things the way they are, then, I
think you have actually made my point.


Owen

>
> Regards,
> Mark Beland
>
>
>
>
> John Santos wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Jo Rhett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> John, I'm a little confused by your math.
>>>
>>> 2000 customers * cost of changing IP addresses equals... $200 per
>>> customer if they have to pay an outside consultant to do it for  
>>> them,
>>> usually less than $20 for inside help... Not a big number.
>>> $40,000 <=> $400,000
>>>
>>
>> Maybe $400,000 is noise to your company.  My company has to think
>> long and hard before spending $40,000.  Your perspective is seriously
>> warped.
>>
>>
>>> Cost of upgrading a single big iron box to have more routing table
>>> slots > $100,000
>>> Multiply by the number of big iron boxes who can't use a default
>>> route, say at least 400?
>>>
>>
>> Are you talking about the cost of upgrading all the backbone routers
>> in the world to handle /25's vs. /22's?  (I forget the size Leroy
>> was originally looking for, but it was about 1/8 the minimum
>> assignment under the current rules.)
>>
>> Aren't all these big boxes going to need to be upgraded anyway to
>> support IPv6?
>>
>>
>>> The only difference is who is paying for it, and who is gaining  
>>> value
>>> for it.  You want us to pay, so that your business can gain value.
>>>
>>
>> Who is "us"?
>>
>>
>>> You do the math, and tell me again why I should be paying out of my
>>> pocket for your customer.  You very well could have explicit
>>> instructions sent to the customers for IP address changes.  You  
>>> could
>>> very well purchase multiple IP ranges from different providers, and
>>> thus make the importance of any IP address change negliable.  Or you
>>> could pay $49/month to get a second uplink and then qualify for PI
>>> space based on multi-homing.
>>>
>>
>> Don't you need to be able to justify a /22 to get the PI multihoming
>> space?  That was the basis of this whole discussion.
>>
>>
>>> Every one of those options is trivially cheap and easy to implement.
>>> This is why I reject your desire to make our businesses pay hard  
>>> cash
>>> so that your business can avoid building even the most trivial
>>> resiliance into your process.
>>>
>>
>> Why does it cost your business any more if Leroy has a /25 that he
>> is using most of versus if he has a /22 that he doesn't really need?
>>
>> Are you on about routing table size again, or something else?
>>
>>
>>> On May 31, 2007, at 4:39 PM, John Santos wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the 2000 customers who would have to pay the cost.  It may be
>>>> small for each, but its cumulative, and will certainly  
>>>> generating lots
>>>> of support calls back to Leroy's company.
>>>>
>>>> My company is in a similar situation to Leroy's customers.  We  
>>>> have an
>>>> external mail filtering service.  Our published MX records point to
>>>> the service, and they then forward the (filtered for spam, viruses,
>>>> RBL, etc.) mail to us, so we have had to open up our firewall to  
>>>> SMTP
>>>> from their specific IP addresses.  We are certainly *not* going  
>>>> to let
>>>> them manage our firewalls for us, nor are we going to willy-nilly
>>>> change
>>>> our firewall rules on their request without minimally verifying the
>>>> origin of the request (a support call to them.)  Multiply by  
>>>> several
>>>> thousand customers.
>>>>
>>>> If they were to start changing IP addresses frequently, we would  
>>>> start
>>>> looking for a new service provider.
>>>>
>>>> This is an *extremely* unlevel playing field, since ACME GIANT ASP,
>>>> INC. (which is many times the size of Leroy's company), could  
>>>> easily
>>>> justify an allocation, and thus could promise their customers that
>>>> their IP addresses and firewall rule would never change.
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Jo Rhett
>>> senior geek
>>>
>>> Silicon Valley Colocation
>>> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070607/72d9c968/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list