[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations

[Chris Grundemann]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 07:34, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Some comments:

Thanks Bill - Adding on to Ted's response...

>
> 1. The proposal neither reduces nor simplifies IPv4 allocations.
> Arguably it improves them but you should consider finding a better
> title.

We chose the name because this proposal reduces the minimum allocation
and simplifies the NRPM by consolidating the multihomed and
non-multihomed sections into one - but we are definitely open to
better titles, that was the area which we focused on least.

>
> 2. A replacement allocation is no longer an initial allocation.
> Initial means "first" not "only one still held."

I think Ted addressed this well - the idea is that you are renumbering
into a larger initial allocation, not receiving new space in addition
to your existing initial allocation.

>
>
>> 4.2.2.1. Use of /24
>>
>> The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /24 from
>> their upstream ISP.
>
> Do you intend the explicit use of a /24 or do you intend the use of
> address space which adds up to at least a /24?

The current text of section 4.2.2.1.1. does have a second sentence
that clarifies and it should probably be added back into this
proposal: "This [/24] allocation may have been provided by an ISP's
upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address
space."  We may have gotten a little too liberal with the scalpel
here.

>
>
>> 1) Makes moot whether the requesting ISP is multihomed or not, with
>> this policy change all initial ISPs request under the same minimums.
>
> I disagree with offering small PI blocks to entities which are not
> multihomed. While any registrants benefit from receiving a PI block,
> only multihomed entities do so without creating new overhead cost for
> everybody else. I OPPOSE the proposal as written because it fails to
> restrict itself to multihomed entities. I would support the proposal
> if it restricted itself to multihomed registrants.
>

Again, Ted addressed this point well but I would add that the
renumbering requirement is meant to help alleviate this concern.

I fully agree with Ted's assessment that multihomed entities are _far_
more likely to split whatever allocation they do have for TE or other
purposes than a single homed entity.  Furthermore, one of the primary
objectives of this policy is to provide a bit of a safety net for
small ISPs who may have limited choices for upstream ISPs - a remote
rural WISP who only has access to a singe provider for instance - as
we enter a time where IPv4 may very well become monetized to the point
that such ISPs will be forced out of business without an allocation
from ARIN.

Also remember that we are approaching the end of the IPv4 free pool,
and as such, this policy allows smaller ISPs to use their current IPv4
status to become a "known ISP" by receiving an initial allocation from
ARIN and therefore qualify for an IPv6 allocation, which is where real
growth must take place in any case.

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>>> 4.2.2.5. Replacement initial allocation
>>
>> OPPOSE. A small org might expect to grow and can be punished multiple
>> times (until they get a /20) by forced renumbering. An end-site office
>> building, sure, force them to renumber, but not an ISP who is assigning
>> address blocks to downstream orgs and customers.
>
> Hi Seth,
>
> Would you clarify: do you mean that you oppose the proposal solely
> because it *doesn't go far enough* loosening the rules on IPv4
> allocation?
>
> As I read the proposal, nothing there would act to restrict
> allocations that ARIN or others may presently make. Have I missed
> something?
>
> I would respectfully suggest that the looming end of the IANA free
> pool makes this a particularly inopportune time to "hold out for
> something better."

I too would like to hear the response to this - the aim of this
proposal was certainly to make it easier for smaller ISPs to get PI
allocations from ARIN (for several reasons), not the other way
around...
~Chris


>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org