[arin-ppml] Multihomed Microallocations

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Aug 4 19:46:57 EDT 2009

Kevin Kargel wrote:
>> "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.

I think the issue under discussion is what constitutes "better"

> The future people will have to contend with the future rules.

Is having those future rule changes something that your expecting
to have as a result of changing the current rules?

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

If they are doing it now, and not causing a problem, why is there a
need to change the rules, to make it easier?

> 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. 

No it's not, "small user entry" is defined as a /22 in section,
the proposal under discussion essentially strips out the "critical
infrastructure provider" requirement from section 4.4 and replaces
it with a bunch of other requirements, because section 4.4 already
permits /24 allocations.

The existing section 4.4 does not in any way encompass what I think
your talking about with "small user" entry.

If you want to allow sub-/22 entrants you have to do it by making
policy changes, there's no way to avoid it.  That's why I submitted
"Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs"  It is aimed at 4.2.2, a
different section entirely, and has a much more limited scope as the 
changes proposed in the other sections, but there is some overlap
in the arguments.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list