[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Nov 9 20:21:47 EST 2009
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 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".
I think the most important thing you can convey to your customers is
that renumbering is inevitable, no matter what ISP they select. Even
if they quit you and go to a larger ISP, what do they think is going
to happen when the IPv4 shortage a few years after runout is so bad that
even the large ISP's have programs to cleanup sparse assignments so
they can offer IPv4 blocks for sale?
But in any case, you always have the choice to continue using your
LIR-assigned IPv4 and NOT filing for an initial allocation. If your
very happy with your upstream and are sure they will always be nice
to you, then it would make the best sense to just keep using their
numbers and let them deal with having to dig around on the transfer
market post-IPv4 runout to find more.
It seems to me that your describing only one side of the proverbial
"between a rock and a hard place"
A small ISP that gets a provisional assignment from ARIN is no worse
than a small ISP that has LIR-assigned numbers. If their upstream
LIR decides to jack up their rates, and their only option is to
go to another upstream feed, they are going to have to renumber anyway,
thus downstream customers will have to renumber.
The only small ISPs that would come out worse under this are the
ones who qualify NOW under the multihomer section, and are sitting on
their hands doing nothing - and the ONLY THING they lose is that
they know that if they file for an initial allocation sometime in
the next 2 years, that is under a /20 in size, that it might be
permanent if they upgrade later. But if they don't qualify now, in
2009, then when do they think they will qualify under Section 188.8.131.52?
Next year? Two years from now? I got news for them - by then the
virgin IPv4 will be gone. And if they DO qualify now and are doing
nothing, then why are you wanting to allow them to continue to do
nothing for the next 2-3 years until IPv4 runout makes it so they
definitely won't be able to get numbers from the RIR?
> 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 184.108.40.206 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.
It won't go away but you can imagine that in a few years after IPv4
runout, that LIR's who are having to pay a lot of money for IPv4
transfers for new blocks are going to pass those costs along to
their customers, particularly customers who have a lot of IPv4
And in some cases, suppose a customer has a /22 from an ISP that
went bankrupt, and was sold to a second ISP, and that second ISP
already has a /17 with space available in it, well that second
ISP may go to that customer and tell them they have to renumber
into the /17 so that they can vacate the /22 and sell it.
>> 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 220.127.116.11.
>> 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?
You did not get your numbers when a policy like this was in force so you
never agreed to renumber and return that /21 in order to get a larger
additional allocation. It's only the people who haven't filed by
the time a policy change like this goes into effect who are going to
have to agree to renumber and return their small holdings.
> 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.
I can't guarantee you will be protected as legacy, as there's been
discussion in the past about the old legacy holders from pre-ARIN days
and possibly getting some of their /8's and such back. But, I
think that the very largest players on the Internet are totally
uninterested in participating in an IPv4 transfer market because
they know that as they have the deepest pockets, they will get the
most screwed over - and as a result, they all are planning on being
ready with IPv6 when IPv4 runs out.
Once the big players are doing IPv6 at the retail level, it's going
to put huge pressure on everyone to get on the stick and do IPv6,
and I suspect that the IPv4 transfer market won't last more than
5-10 years at the most.
More information about the ARIN-PPML