[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

[John Paul Morrison]

What about splitting the difference and resubmitting with /23? Or 
demonstrate existsing multi-homing with a non-PI /24?

I thought 2007-6 was very pragmatic. I've seen plenty of customers move 
to getting their own ASNs and being multi homed in every sense
except being forcibly tied to one of their upstreams by not having PI 
address space.

I probably shouldn't be surprised at the knee-jerk response against 
2007-6, but I was surprised to see it go down in flames after so little 
apparent discussion and opposition.


David Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 04:12:16PM -0400, Leroy Ladyzhensky wrote:
>   
>> Implementing a policy/policy change for end users (internet based businesses, MSP's) to obtain a smaller block of IP's (/24 or /23) would allow companies like this to qualify for a block of IP's and prevent unneeded waste.
>>
>> I would like your comments / experiences on this issue.
>>     
>
> As the author of 2007-6, I think you are on the right track, although
> your reasoning needs to be tightened up a bit.  I enitrely agree that
> there's good reasons for decreasing the minimum PI size to /24, but
> the community seems to presently believe otherwise.
>
> Specifically, there is concern about such a policy creating a further
> strain on the remaning space, leading to faster IPv4 exhaustion and
> further increases in routing table size.  There's also some fraud
> concerns.
>
> You should really read the ppml archives with an eye to 2007-6.  You
> may want to read the meeting transcripts from the last public meeting
> in San Juan.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -David
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070531/4ee508f5/attachment.htm>