[arin-ppml] Summary: lowering the ARIN minimum allocation

Davis, Terry L terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Mon Aug 3 17:18:26 EDT 2009


Also down the road on the IPv6 vein, a couple things some of the corporate (Enterprise not ISP) legal beagles need to review and discuss, relate to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) reporting and critical infrastructure sectors.

- From some reading and visiting with different corporate audit folks, SOX may require corporate dual-homing and PIA space to meet their obligations to their stockholders as the lack of either places them in a position that their "business continuity" would rely on a single provider.

- Likewise looking at the "critical infrastructure sectors", some of the sector regulations coming out look to have the same general guidance/requirements.

Hopefully some of the legal and regulatory folks might eventually provide some solid answers here on these potentially emerging issues.  But if either is going to be the case, we will need to consider how to meet that condition.

Take care

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 11:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Summary: lowering the ARIN minimum allocation
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:40:33PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > In a message written on Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:28:54PM -0400, William
> Herrin wrote:
> > > A hundred messages later, here's a summary of the discussion on
> > > lowering the ARIN minimum allocation for Multihomed organizations:
> >
> > I notice something missing.  IPv6.
> >
> > I say this because it would appear we have ~2 years of IPv4 left.
> > Given a policy cycle to get something implemented, it would appear
> > we might be talking about policy changes that matter for ~18 months.
> > That's not to say we shouldn't do it, but that we may need to direct
> > some focus elsewhere.
> >
> > I would prefer a new policy look directly at multi-homing end-users
> > in IPv6, and if there are smart things we can be doing there.  Since
> > the space is larger, we have many more opportunities to do things
> > like right-sizing the first allocation, and doing spare allocation
> > in ways that allocations can grow without turning into multiple
> > route announcements.  Work in this area is likely to pay dividends
> > for 10's of years, not a year and a half.
> >
> > --
> >        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> >         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> 	you raise a couple of interesting ideas.
> 	a) that once the last "greenfield" IPv4 prefix is handed out,
> 	   that any/all policy for IPv4 is dead.
> 	b) there are fundamental differences in how one constructs
> 	   policy for the different address families.
> 	and I am not sure I agree with either lema.
> --bill
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list