[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

Leroy Ladyzhensky leroy at emailsorting.com
Fri Jun 8 16:47:10 EDT 2007

Thanks Scott...

what can be done to address ARIN's concern on a proposal like this?

the proposal can be viewed at 

I guess the ones that would need some thought is...1 and 3

A.	ARIN Staff

     1.	There is very little qualification criteria which could lead to
policy abuse by spammers.  These entities could create many different
accounts over time as their existing space gets blacklisted or becomes
otherwise unusable.

     2.	This could significantly increase the number of requests for
ARIN services thereby requiring additional Registration Services
Department and Financial Services Department staff.

     3.	Policy applies only to end users which could be perceived as
unfair to ISPs.  This could also lead to potential abuse of the policy
if ISPs apply as end users for single /24 IPv4 address block.

     4.	It is unclear exactly how an organization can qualify for a /24
IPv4 address block under this policy.  It appears that NRPM section
4.3.3, Utilization rate, requires 25% immediate, 50% within 1 year,
would be the justification criteria.  However, NRPM section,
Reassignments to multihomed downstream customers, indicates that an ISP
can reassign a /24 IPv4 address block without regard to planned host
counts as long as the customer is multi-homed.  The question here is
does this policy allow ARIN to qualify a requestor for a /24 IPv4
address block based solely on multi-homing or should host counts also be
taken into account?

     5.	The policy does not address requests for more than one /24 IPv4
address block for multiple sites.

     6.	NRPM Section 4.4, Micro-allocation, should remain as is since it
is a policy section essential for micro-allocation for critical
infrastructure related requests.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Leibrand" <sleibrand at internap.com>
To: "Leroy Ladyzhensky" <leroy at emailsorting.com>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

>I think the appropriate policy proposal would simply update references to 
>/22 in the NRPM (in and elsewhere) to /24, and add requirements for 
>how much space you must be using to get a /23 or /24 (as there are for /20, 
>/21, and /22).
> Whether such a change would get consensus I'm not sure, but we haven't 
> exactly seen a run on PI /22's, so I doubt we'll see one for /23 or /24 
> either.
> -Scott
> Leroy Ladyzhensky wrote:
>> Perfect...
>> So one of the requiems to qualify for a /24 from ARIN..
>>     1.    Must be multi-homed.
>> does any one have other requirements to add...
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Jon Lewis" <jlewis at lewis.org>
>> To: "Leroy Ladyzhensky" <leroy at emailsorting.com>
>> Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
>> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks
>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Leroy Ladyzhensky wrote:
>>>> but what you are actually saying is --- the waste of a limited resource 
>>>> is justified because ... "Fewer larger routes benefits everyone" 
>>>> well.. actually only...  ISP's and there hardware budget.
>>> My point was, if a network continues to grow and eventually does use up 
>>> what it gets (just not at the expected pace) nothing's been wasted, and 
>>> global routing table slots have been conserved.
>>>> how can we get a way from this thinking and begin to move forward... 
>>>> and face it... to actually conserve IP's there needs to be an option to 
>>>> allow smaller allocations....
>>>> The ONLY thing that needs to be considered is HOW the smaller 
>>>> allocations get handed out... do the go to anyone who asks.. I would 
>>>> think not... what would be the criteria for a company to get a /24 
>>>> allocation? any input on this would be great.
>>> As I've said a couple times recently, I'm not opposed to / am in favor 
>>> of issuing PI /24s to any multihomed network.  If you're multihomed, 
>>> your PI /24 takes up the same global table routing slot your PA /24 
>>> would (less space if you had multiple PA /24s from your various 
>>> providers which you'd give up to get PI).
>>> If you're not multihomed, and not big enough to qualify for PI space 
>>> under current guidelines, sorry, you get to keep using PA.  Otherwise 
>>> the routing tables really would explode.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
>>>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>>>  Atlantic Net                |
>>> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list