[ppml] Policy to help the little guys

[mack]

> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:06:47 +0900
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy to help the little guys
> To: William Herrin <arin-contact at dirtside.com>
> Cc: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>, arin ppml <ppml at arin.net>
> Message-ID: <81D0F51E-6961-4980-B408-A7895D56AA83 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
[snip]
>
> The cost of a PI assignment and a multi-homed PA /24 is identical
> from a routing table perspective.  Both end up announced into
> the routing table.

The /24s are in the routing table one way or the other.

>
> In fact, for "TE", Verizon and others announce (or forward the
> announcement of) many PA more specifics that are not even
> connected to more than one independent AS.
>
> > The prefix length restriction at the RIRs is a somewhat upside-down
> > way of assuring that few who aren't putting lots of money into the
> > infrastructure can consume the expensive resource. To justify a /22
> > you must document a fairly sizable IT operation, one whose nature
> will
> > require spending at least tens of thousands of dollars a year on
> > Internet transit.
> >
> Not true.  One can easily support sufficient IT infrastructure to
> legitimately utilize more than 512 host addresses for just over
> $100/month if one is frugal and has a relatively low traffic per
> host footprint.
>

Current policy still allows for IP based hosting for a number of things
including SSL certs (which older computers still don't support properly).
($12/cert + $6/domain)* 512 = $768/mo.  Not exactly frugal and throw in a
pair of cheap T1s ($200/mo).  So yes it is very possible to contribute very little
and still use up a routing slot.

> > Solve either variant of the BGP cost problem first (cut the cost or
> > figure out how to bill for it) and there'll be no reason for ARIN to
> > maintain a limit on minimum assignment size.
> >
> Since the BGP cost problem is identical in the case of
> a multi-homed end-site whether they get their space
> from PA or PI, I don't see how this is a legitimate argument.
>
> Indeed, instead, it seems to me that the current restrictions
> constitute a Pony for the incumbent ISPs supporting provider
> lock-in.
>
> Owen

PA vs PI division does support provider lock in.
So in that sense it is a Pony for the ISPs.
It also means that the PA customers are paying for
a lot of routers for the ISPs.

I am not sure which way to go on this proposal.
It does cost a lot per routing slot and discouraging
indiscriminant use of routing slots is a good goal.
Some TE is necessary and unavoidable.

Anyone with a sufficient business case for being multi-homed is
going to be multi-homed.  Cost is not a big barrier.

--
LR Mack McBride
Network Administrator
Alpha Red, Inc.