[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104

[Davis, Terry L]

All

Maybe to open an old topic into the discussion again...

Is there a good reason that ARIN doesn't pick 1 to 5 hubs in a province/state and assign a /32 or larger to them depending on their Internet population and then make sub-allocations from these region prefixes to smaller entities in that region?  

Huge amounts of the potential global routing tables could then be aggregated regionally with still gaining the ability allow small local sub-allocations for small entities without much impact to the global routing.  Then from the regional aggregations could be broken up locally by ISP.

And I'm fine with the idea that if the entity moves out of the regional then they do have to re-address or if they open branches in other regions, those branches get regional addressing based on their location.

I probably missed something basic here and I know this has a problem with the preservation Internet "anonymity" but I think that concept actually died a long time ago; most of the web sites I visit anymore seem to even which city (it's pretty small) I live in already.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 1:04 PM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:08:38PM -0500, William
> Herrin wrote:
> > You've couched it better than Owen but you've basically said the same
> > thing: the community won't want this, so why bother bringing it to the
> > point where you ask them? The problem with that theory is two-fold:
> 
> You are putting words into my mouth.  The community may well want
> this in the future, I have no reason to believe they will or they
> won't.
> 
> > In the end you could be right. It could well go down in flames during
> > the consensus call at the meeting. But even that serves a valuable
> > purpose.
> 
> There is still time for it to be on the agenda at the next meeting.
> Work the idea in the mailing list.  Refine it.  Resubmit.  The AC
> saying "not ready yet" doesn't remotely imply the AC saying "never".
> If we ever have to say never I bet we will do that quite clearly.
> :)
> 
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/