[arin-ppml] Set aside round deux

[Hannigan, Martin]

On 7/26/10 5:45 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?)


That would be in-line with the intent.


> 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...
> 

I can't immediately see a problem with a /24 as a minimum, but I currently
do not have enough information to agree. There is a balance though and I
don't see why I can't be found (and justified).


Best,

-M<