[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
mysidia at gmail.com
Fri Nov 6 20:42:22 EST 2009
I find myself undecided in regards to this proposal at the present
time, with regards to support/oppose...
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Under this proposal they qualify for what might be termed a
> "temporary" allocation. If they never grow, they never renumber.
Then it's not temporary at all.. it's more like a provisional allocation.
> If they grow, they renumber into a larger allocation that reduces
> the burden of carrying their routes - same as the current requirements.
Under the current requirements, they might choose not to renumber..
> Thus they are not really "Initial requesters" However, since
> they are getting their first allocation, they ARE "Initial
> requesters" - from a certain point of view.
Um.. they can't be both "not really 'Initial requestors'" and
Initial requestors at the same time...
It's a confusing and contrived thing to suggest "initial allocation"
is anything other than the very first allocation they get.
> Your making a claim here that the simple property of
> being multihomed somehow acts as a deterrent to an org for
> subnetting, and splitting their advertisements, thus
> creating new overhead cost for everyone else.
The cost is not based solely on whether they subnet or not, it's also
based on whether other providers can effectively filter the
additional noise out.
A small ISP gets IPs from upstream providers out of PA blocks from
which ARIN allocates prefixes no longer than /20.
Providers who need table size reduction to avoid increased cost may
have that option of filtering, discarding announcements with prefixes
longer than /20, rely on the non-customer's ISP's covering route
to provide connectivity.
For the blocks ARIN assigns /22s from, for multi-homed users,
/22s definitely need be accepted or connectivity would be quite
If ARIN were to allocate smaller blocks such as /23, these could
not be filtered, since there is no upstream provider announcing an
overall /20 PA that contains the /23.
The smaller an allocation ARIN makes from any given block, the
less effective that an aggressive filtering strategy could be.
When single-homed ISPs get a /23 from an upstream provider the
DFZ _MIGHT_ see 1 additional /23 and 2 additional /24s
being broadcast, for a total of 3 new table entries, but then
again they might not.. the single-homed ISP may not announce a
When single-homed ISPs get a /23 from ARIN, you can be assured,
almost guaranteed an additional /23 appearing, and 2
additional /24s getting announced cannot be ruled out.
It seems like a plausible scenario, that the costs to others would
be much greater, in the scenario where ARIN allocates a
significant number of /23s to single-homed providers.
I couldn't think of any plausible scenario where the costs to
others would be less or the same, if single-homed entities are
allowed to receive small direct allocations.
More information about the ARIN-PPML