[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
bill at herrin.us
Mon Nov 9 16:23:26 EST 2009
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>>> William Herrin wrote:
>>>> But that's entirely beside the point. Single-homed entities require
>>>> zero routes in the DFZ to function as designed on a day to day basis
>>>> while multihomed entities require at least one. That was the point.
> Bill, I hate to point it out to you but you did not make any statement of
> /20 in your post of the 6th, you were speaking generally and I
> responded by pointing out out that everything /20 and above didn't
> follow this general statement.
Does it help you better understand my position if you adjust the above
to read "Singled-homed entities which do not currently hold addresses
directly from ARIN require zero routes?"
> However, multihomers who qualify for a /22 right now are completely
> free to KEEP that /22 and go get another /22, when requesting an
> additional allocation. Thus, creating 2 DFZ entries.
> Under this proposal we put a stop to that. Multihomers no longer exist
> as a special class, when ANYONE gets a /22 and then goes and requests
> an additional allocation, they will have to return that first /22 to get
> their /21. Thus, knocking then back down to 1 DFZ entry.
Hmm. I missed that on the first read. Not sure what I think of it.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML