[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
sethm at rollernet.us
Mon Nov 9 21:27:15 EST 2009
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> 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?
The point I was trying to make was that the large ISP will still survive
whereas the small one won't.
> 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.
Having recently has a glimpse into the world snowshoe I have a different
view. There is so much space being "rented" right now it's not even
funny. A huge amount of it sits around idle so it will "clean up". I can
get multiple /18's and up with a phone call and enough money. We don't
have to wait for runout, these guys will be ready and willing to sell
addresses to a brand new market when the time comes.
> 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.
If I had PA space (I don't) and that happened, I would just pass it on
to the customer as a fee. I believe we will see the routing table
explode as people grab PA space and multihome it, sending everyone
scrambling to damp it with new prefix filters.
> 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 184.108.40.206?
> 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?
Are there really any ISP's out there operating on a single /24 anymore?
(serious question) The days of small ISP's with a rack-o-modems in the
back room is long gone. No policy change we make will motivate anyone.
>> 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
> from them.
> 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.
I'd "sell" my /22 and /21 on a transfer if this kind of policy hurts me
enough to where I need to money to close up without a bankruptcy, so
keep that in mind when crafting policies that could potentially drive
someone of my size out of business and help create supply. Maybe shell
it out to the brokers I mentioned earlier.
>> 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.
Can't this possibly trigger people starting to horde addresses earlier?
First thing that came to mind for me is "crap, I'd better think about
latching on to some additional space right now if this passes."
>> 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.
We can't really do anything about pre-ARIN or existing agreements, so
it's best to forget about it and move on and up. But I don't believe
they are all planning on IPv6 in the near term. See my recent somewhat
public fight with Verizon re: exactly that. Maybe if someone could
convince the world to route IPv6 as fully as IPv4... but no, they're
trying to keep costs down, and *not* supporting IPv6 completely is part
of that goal.
More information about the ARIN-PPML