[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit - Correct Title

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> 4.3.6.2 Additional assignments for small multi-homers
>> 
>> Any end-user that possesses an assignment smaller than /22 under any
>> part of section 4.3 shall not be able to get an additional assignment
>> unless they agree to return all existing 4.3 assignments within 12
>> months of receiving a new assignment. The new assignment shall be sized
>> to accommodate their existing utilization in addition to their justified
>> additional growth space under section 4.3.6.1.
> 
> Abuse scenario:
> 
> End user registrant holds two RSA /16's and a variety of legacy
> registrations including a legacy /24. He has sufficient utilization
> and projected growth to justify an additional /20.
> 
> Registrant signs an RSA (not legacy RSA) for the /24 bringing it under
> the jurisdiction of the NRPM.
> 
> Registrant requests additional resources.
> 
> Registrant assigned a /14 (minimum CIDR block necessary to accommodate
> two /16's a /24 and a /20) and is required to return the two /16's and
> /24 within 12 months.
> 
> Result: gaming the proposed policy nets the registrant 100,000 more
> IPv4 addresses than he would otherwise qualify for.

The existing policy under 4.7 allows them to do that without requiring
gaming this policy, so, I am not sure why that is viewed as a problem with
this policy.

> 
> Owen, I called your attention to the flaw in this text last week. I
> thought I pointed it out to you last August too but I could be
> mistaken. Either way, you really ought to fix it by constraining the
> return to just those assignments smaller than /22.
> 
Yes, I saw your message last week, and, I'm considering ways to
address that.  However, I'm trying to avoid further unintended
consequences in the process.  Look for something shortly.

> I'd like to be able to support this proposal.
> 
That would be good.  It's a no-op to the routing table and it's
beneficial to a not insignificant class of registrants.

Owen

> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.