[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Scott Leibrand]

On Mon 7/26/2010 2:30 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> If the same network that only needs a /32 for a NAT device also needs a /20 to use
> for purposes defined on the acceptable use list then I think that they're in good
> shape. If a network is so small and not expecting to grow at all in $time, I'm not
> so sure why it wouldn't make sense for them to scrounge up an address or ask
> their upstream for "one" (both of which are much more likely to be routable
> at least in the early stages of transition).
>    
> Alas, I'm not really in a position to argue the min/max until I receive some
> constructive feedback, which was the main purpose of the post.
>    


So the current minimum allocation size (for singly-homed ISPs) of a /20 
is based on the assumption that every customer can get a public IP.  As 
I understand it, this proposal would change that assumption to only 
provide public IPv4 addresses for network infrastructure and translation 
gear.  (Is that correct?)  If so, the same sized ISP would need far 
fewer public IPv4 addresses. So it would seem to me that a much smaller 
minimum allocation size (like /24) would be more appropriate here...

-Scott