[arin-ppml] Multihomed Microallocations

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of William Herrin
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 12:01 PM
>> To: Owen DeLong
>> Cc: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multihomed Microallocations
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:15 PM, William Herrin<bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> I suppose we can agree to disagree here. It does, actually impact
>>>> ISP allocations.  As soon as a person qualifies for a /24 under this
>>>> policy as an ISP, it would immediately convert them to a known
>>>> ISP in the ARIN service region and make them eligible to receive
>>>> a /32 of IPv6 in addition to their IPv4 /24. While I'm all for removing
>>>> unnecessary barriers to multi-homing, I think giving an IPv6 /32
>>>> to every user that justifies a /24 as an ISP opens up a serious
>>>> hole in policy.
>>> Bullhockey. The 6.5.1.1 requirement is that the organization must "be
>>> an LIR" as defined under 2.4. That requires that they be allocated
>>> (not assigned) addresses from any other IR. Typically that's an RIR
>>> like ARIN but there's not restriction on it being another LIR.
>>
>> Come to think of it, under the current IPv6 policy, I can, right now,
>> today, have my ISP *allocate* me an IPv4 /30 on my single-homed $20
>> DSL connection *and* delegate rwhois to my server. Next I assign /32's
>> to my two next-door neighbors and put their names in my rwhois server.
>> If I now promise to make 200 downstream IPv6 assignments within 60
>> months, I'm qualified to receive a /32 of IPv6 space... based on that
>> promise, my use of 4 IP addresses and my payment of the annual ARIN
>> fee.
>>
>> One wonders why I ever thought it was hard to get IPv6 addresses from
>> ARIN...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
> 
> I do not know if all of the efforts to keep the small guy (multi-DSL) users
> off of the backbone are a good thing.  Looking back in the history of the
> internet the then little folks using dialup were very instrumental in the
> development and R&D that brought about what we enjoy today.
> 
> I for one would rather encourage these folks.  I believe the hassle and cost
> of obtaining an ASN and going through the hoops to get an allocation are
> enough to keep the frivolous users away.  
> 
> Working to exclude the experimenters and small users will ultimately prevent
> good that could be done for the community.  I believe this outweighs any
> small burden or abuse we would see from this sector.  Rather than fostering
> an elitist attitude and trying to keep anyone who is not as big as us out,
> we should be encouraging the small operator.
> 


Why does the small user and experimenter WANT PI space in the first
place?  Well, their multihoming I hear you say.  Baloney.  You do not 
need PI space to multihome.  You can advertise an assignment from an 
upstream just fine.  So what that there's a covering route out there, 
you still have your redundancy.

When you boil it down it really comes to 2 reasons:

a) The small operator wants to be able to tell an upstream to kiss
off if they get pissy with him, without renumbering.  That's lock-in.

b) The small operator cannot get even a small amount of space (like
a /24) from an upstream because that upstream is severely constrained on IP.


Neither reason is really valid now.  Renumbering a /24 is childs play, 
if an "experimenter" or "small user" cannot manage to renumber a /24
they are incompetent and shouldn't be fooling around in this to begin 
with.  So what it's inconvenient - their desire for less inconvenience 
is at the expense of the entire Internet.  Thus, for a /24, lock-in is
a myth.

As for the upstream being constrained, well I don't see ARIN denying 
IPv4 requests right now.  Sure they will in the future - but there will 
be plenty of small /24's that are currently abandoned that ARIN will end 
up taking back as a result of recovery efforts.  If an upstream is 
claiming they are IP constrained that is a flat out lie.  Send them to 
the RIR for more numbering.

Now, maybe in the future this will change and little allocations won't
be available anymore.  So people are wanting to get their 
microallocations now, before the land rush.  OK, fine, no problem there. 
  But eventually no matter what policy is done, there won't be any
more allocations of any kind.

You might be throwing a lifeline to the small users and experimenters
right now, but only for the next few years crop of 'em.  After all,
what do you think becomes of experimenters when their IPv4 disappears? 
Those that have brains and courage come out all right; those that 
haven't are winnowed out.


Ted