[arin-ppml] Summary: lowering the ARIN minimum allocation
kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Aug 3 14:49:35 EDT 2009
> With all of this in mind, it seems to me that there are two ways we
> can reasonably go with the policy:
> Alternative #1: Lower the minimum for multihomed organizations to /23.
> Give it a year to see if we get unintended consequences. Then lower it
> to /24.
> Alternative #2: Craft a fresh policy for small multihomed
> organizations to fill the gap between the current /22 ARIN minimum and
> the /24 defacto minimum on the backbone. Limit folks to 1 assignment
> at a time longer than /24 and none once they have at least a /22 so
> that starting allocations smaller doesn't induce routing table growth.
> Exclude folks for whom their ISP bills are less than the systemic cost
> of carrying a route. Make sure folks getting these allocations are and
> stay multihomed with multiple vendors who are really doing BGP. Make
> sure they're not just using it as an excuse to get PI space. Maybe
> eventually raise the regular minimum from /22 back to /20 in order to
> encourage aggregation if this /24 policy works out.
> Both approaches are cautious steps forward. The first approach is very
> straightforward but offers no protection against the mostly
> hypothetical problems with allowing more orgs to qualify for ARIN
> addresses. The second tries to more creatively tackle the risks and
> liabilities at a cost of greater complexity.
Thanks for the summary, Bill.
I don't see the downside to slowly increasing the mask length, especially as
APNIC has done the basal experimentation.
I do think that there should be a requirement that micro-allocations be
offered only as initial allocations, and that there be a requirement that
they must be replaced by or aggregated in to any future allocations.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML