[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
sethm at rollernet.us
Mon Nov 9 19:19:49 EST 2009
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> If we rewrite a proposal that only affects 22.214.171.124 (for example,
> suppose I modified Proposal 98 to get rid of the triggers and just
> make it apply immediately) so that the permanent assignment people
> are happy, then the anti-DFZ-growth people are going
> to oppose it because it would increase the DFZ, because the multihomer
> loophole will still be around.
> If we rewrite Section 126.96.36.199 to include forced return-and-renumber,
> (essentially what this proposal does) then the anti-DFZ-growth people
> will be happy but the permanent assignment people will not be.
Neither will my customers if they're forced to renumber more than never.
Remember, an incoming colo customer may have already had to renumber to
come to me and will have to renumber to leave me. My concern is the
hardship to customers and if they say "screw this, if I have to renumber
anyway, goodbye". A small entity like myself may not be able to survive
that. But my space will be reclaimed if I fold, so is that the point?
> The anti-DFZ-growth people are already unhappy about the DFZ loophole
> in 188.8.131.52 as it is. And the small single-homers who are currently
> tied to LIR-assignments that they are afraid will go away post-IPv4
> runout, are EXTREMELY unhappy about things as it is now - and would
> be overjoyed to get anything at all - like this proposal.
Why would their assigned space go away post runout? Are they forced to
give it back or something? I must have missed something.
> So, like Chris, I have to basically say that the most we could do
> is possibly respond to your criticism of it by playing around with
> the math a bit - like for example a renumbering requirement of /22
> like Chris was suggesting - but even then we risk opposition from
> the anti-DFZ-growth people, so if playing around with the math isn't
> enough for the permanent assignment people to change their opposition to
> support, then it would be pointless to bother trying even that.
> As I see it, the small sub-/20 multihomer ISPs out there have had
> plenty of time to get their initial allocations under Section 184.108.40.206.
> They know IPv4-runout is coming, the bar was made lower for them to
> get their portable IPv4 a long time ago. If there's any of them out
> there who absolutely must get their "never-will-need-to-renumber-/22"
> then since this policy proposal change is going to take a half a year to
> implement, they are going to have PLENTY of warning. And, in 2-3 years
> it won't matter anyway, since there won't be virgin IPv4 at the RIR's
> As much as I'd like to accommodate the permanent assignment people, I
> think there's a lot more of the anti-DFZ-growth people out there, and in
> this proposal I'm frankly more interested in looking out for the small
> single-homers who I really believe are going to be jacked around once
> the IPv4 transfer market starts up.
So then let me ask a practical question.
I have a /22 - been using it for a few years now since renumbering from
two PA /24's. I just got a /21 because I moved to a new, larger place
only last month giving me the physical space to take on more colos. What
happens when I need to apply for more space? Do I just tell my customers
too bad you can't expand and close up shop when too many leave?
I guess I really don't understand this at all and as long as I'm
protected as legacy, so I withdraw my original opposition and neither
support nor oppose this policy.
More information about the ARIN-PPML