[arin-ppml] Proposal 98: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs

[Chris Grundemann]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:56, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
>>
>> +1. Can we simply abandon this in favor of proposal 99, or is there
>> something in this proposal besides the sliding trigger that would make it
>> distinct? I've reread both, and I'm not really seeing anything, besides
>> maybe the specific references to small ISPs, which I'm not convinced is
>> necessary to achieve the intended result by simply making it possible to get
>> /24s as end allocations for multihomed networks.

PP98 applies to ISPs via initial allocations
PP99 applies to end-users via initial assignments (specifically
multi-homed end-users)

>
> When the AC decided to put both proposal 98 and 99 on our docket, my
> recollection is that we intended to merge the two into a single draft policy
> to present in Toronto.  My own opinion is that the simpler policy (99) is a
> good starting framework, but we did feel that there were some aspects of 98
> that we would probably want to include as well.

I do not think that the policies should be merged.  I think that it is
likely enough that some in the community will support changing the
minimum for multi-homed assignments while not supporting the change in
minimum for initial allocations - and vice verse - that the two
concepts be discussed and debated individually.

>
> If would be quite useful if everyone could take a look at the proposals with
> an eye toward providing the AC feedback on which aspects of the proposal(s)
> would be most useful and beneficial to include in a merged version.

IMHO:

 (1) pp99 is ready to become a draft policy.

 (2) pp98 should be simplified before becoming a draft policy.
Something along the lines of:

Replace the current section 4.2.2.1.1 with:

4.2.2.1.1. Use of /22

The efficient utilization of an entire previously allocated /22 from
their upstream ISP. This /22 allocation may have been provided by an
ISP's upstream provider(s), and does not have to be contiguous address
space. The organization must meet the requirement of efficient use of
4 /24s. For example, if an organization holds a smaller allocation,
such as 3 /24s, from its upstream provider, the organization would not
meet the minimum utilization requirements of a /22.

 (3) And while we are on the topic, Is there any interest in lowering
the minimum allocation for multi-homed ISPs?  It would be as easy as
adding a line to section 4.2.2.2. Multihomed, like this:

When requesting a /23, demonstrate the efficient utilization of a
minimum contiguous or noncontiguous /24 from an upstream.

If there is any interest in discussing that as well, I can submit a
formal proposal...

$.02
~Chris

>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
>
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org