[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit - Correct Title
owen at delong.com
Fri Jan 29 14:13:20 EST 2010
I would like to clarify a couple of points in this discussion...
This proposal is a bit more conservative than the one being discussed below.
As I understand the NRPM, this proposal would enable customers who can justify
a need for 128 or more IP addresses and who are multihomed to get a /24. It would
not enable customers with, say, 8 addresses to get a /24 from ARIN, even though
they can get a /24 from one of their upstream providers.
Thus, this policy only opens up ARIN PI /24s to a subset of those that can currently
get PA /24s, and, not everyone. While I would support a policy that had parity with
the PA /24 policy for direct assignments from ARIN, I think such a policy would be
far less likely to achieve community consensus at this time.
On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Jim McBurnett wrote:
> Thanks Bill....
> Yes.. I agree with the holding off..
> Also-- Could someone correct me where I stated in the last post IRT the ISP contract requirements as a Multihoming request verification from ARIN?
> I think that would help put James at ease....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 11:18 AM
> To: Owen DeLong; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Assignment Unit - Correct Title
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jim McBurnett <jim at tgasolutions.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply..
>> I wish I had time and budget to go the meetings..
>> I have not seen anymore comments on this... Has an consensus been made?
> I'm waiting for the update to the text that Owen promised to close a
> hole in the language that could cause the renumbering and return of
> blocks much larger than /20.
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:36 AM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The primary concern from a policy perspective to ARIN and to the ISP
>> should be to prevent end-users from LYING and showing a network
>> design that includes multi-homing, where in fact they have no real
>> intention to multihome for the redundancy they claim they want.
> Hi James,
> If you're willing to lie, it's not hard to justify a /22. That's
> fraud, however, so if you're found out you could be very suddenly
> without the IP addresses critical to your business. High risk for an
> insufficient reward.
> Operationally, it just hasn't been a problem.
> If it does become a problem, ARIN can trivially address it outside of
> the policy framework. They need only implement a SWIP-like framework
> in which each AS providing you with BGP service submits a template
> declaring their AS and your ORG.
> Right now, though, that would be a lot of work to implement a
> precaution that does not appear necessary.
> 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
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML