[arin-ppml] Multihomed Microallocations

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Tue Aug 4 19:00:39 EDT 2009

> "addictive resources" are present in many industries, the Internet is
> not special at all in this regard.
The Internet is only special (as regards this focused topic) in that it
doesn't have to be that way.  It will only be that way if WE decide to make
it that way.  WE don't have a lot of say in those other industries, but we
do here.  WE can do it better than THEY did.

> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > While I don't think that is typically the case now, I suspect it is
> > possible, and in the future will be likely.
> >
> I agree that it will be an issue in the future.  It will be an issue for
> everyone, of course.  Some sooner than later.  Likely, the small orgs
> will be affected earlier.
> > c) They are interested, they want to educate themselves, experiment and
> do
> > it like the big people.  This is ok in my book and qualifies as a
> > justification.  Remember that there are costs and red tape hurdles to go
> > through that will limit this type of exercise.  Everybody has to start
> some
> > where, and this looks like a good starting point to me.
> >
> What about the people who want to educate themselves 5 years from now
> when the only way to get more IPv4 is by buying it for lots of money in
> large chunks?  Sooner or later the Internet is going to have to fish or
> cut bait with IPv6.

The future people will have to contend with the future rules.  They may even
have to do it with IPv6.  

> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Well, if policy for the remainder of IPv4 life is only the next few
> years
> > and doesn't matter then we should all save ourselves a bunch of work and
> > quit wasting our time discussing IPv4 policy.  I don't buy this line of
> > thinking.
> >
> Neither do I, I do not agree that once IPv4 runs out that there will be
> no need of IPv4 policy, in fact, I think the reverse will be the case.
> > I really don't see this becoming a big burden on the backbone, and I see
> no
> > need to slam the door on the few that may want to do it and will be
> willing
> > to pay for it.
> >
> I don't either, but you keep flipping back and forth on your point, Kevin.
> This terminology for example:
> "...Working to exclude the experimenters and small users will ultimately
> prevent good that could be done for the community....Rather than
> fostering an elitist attitude and trying to keep anyone who is not as
> big as us out..."
> contrasts with this:
> "...slam the door on the few that may want to do it..."

There are people and orgs doing this, not wanting to.  I don't think they
are creating a large problem.

> The FEW.  Kevin, you said few, not me.  Your assuming, perhaps
> unconsciously, that there's only a small number that want to do this.
> Yet many times you make claims about the large number of people and orgs
> that want to do this.
> I know your trying to be fair but I think that you have already
> unconsciously accepted the premise that there needs to be a limit,
> a "speedbump" as it were to just handing out small allocations
> to anyone who asks.  You know, in your heart, that there is logic
> there.

The speedbump should be proportional to the problem.  I think that the
speedbump of requiring an ASN and the costs and admin load that goes with it
is plenty of limiting for this issue.

> I am just saying here that there's good reasons that it has been
> made difficult to get this space.  Now perhaps some of those are
> not as valid anymore - routers today are more powerful and can hold
> more routes, that kind of thing.  As well as the upcoming end of
> IPv4.  Those are changed premises.  But, not ALL of the premises
> originally used as reason to make that entry difficult have disappeared.
> I would therefore go very, very cautiously here.

I am not even saying we need to do anything special to facilitate this.  All
I am suggesting is lets not draft new rules to proscribe it.  The system to
manage small user entry into ARIN space is there today.  If it ain't broke
don't fix it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090804/af9500a5/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list