[arin-ppml] Policy for connected vs. non-connected networks
owen at delong.com
Mon Feb 22 16:29:43 EST 2010
In the discussion of non-connected networks and the perceived need for a separate
policy to support them instead of just assigning numbers to meet uniqueness requirements
and taking ARIN out of the routing policy issue, it occurred to me that the following may not
be well understood by some of the people discussing this issue.
There are two semi-independent, but, interlinked finite resource pools.
Pool 1: IP Addresses -- easy.
Pool 2: DFZ Routing Table Slots -- complex.
ARIN is responsible for administering Pool 1 in accordance with policies set by the community.
ARIN is not and, IMHO, should not be responsible for managing pool 2. This should be left
to the people and organizations who actually run routers. It is possible for a company to
reject prefixes that are assigned by ARIN and still survive in business. Verizon is currently
rejecting ARIN assigned /48s as an example.
I believe that the ideal policy from an administration of unique numbers perspective would be
such that connected and non-connected networks can get the unique numbers they need
through a reasonable justification process. I do not believe that the community significantly
benefits from disparate policies for assignments of numbers to these two classes of use,
nor do I believe that membership in one of these classes is immutable. Connected networks
sometimes disconnect and disconnected networks sometimes connect.
Further, I believe that if we have a liberalized policy for acquisition of unique numbers
based on a claim that said numbers will not be connected, such numbers will end up
being abused for connected purposes in order to avoid the less liberal policies.
More information about the ARIN-PPML