[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service

[Scott Helms]

On 4/8/2011 12:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Do you lease space to providers that couldn't qualify for a /24?

Of course not, you can't announce it yourself or get it announced by 
your upstream provider (in my experience) so there is very little value 
in allocating blocks smaller than /24.
> If so, then, perhaps you are doing something for providers that don't have
> the option of getting portable space from ARIN.
>
> However, it's hard to imagine running a multi-homed ISP with less
> than a /24 to begin with. Heck, it's hard to imagine where they would
> get their smaller allocation routed.
>
> Yes, there was a time when ARIN policy didn't cover such smaller
> ISPs. Policy has changed since then and your use case is no longer
> necessary.

I'll humbly say that you're probably not speaking from actual 
experience.  I work with rural ISPs every day of the week and our main 
customer for this kind of service is NOT multi-homed at all and would 
NOT qualify under the normal rules but does want portable address 
space.  I am quite aware of the rule that allowed a /20 to be allocated 
if the ISP was able to announce via two separate ASNs and where we could 
we helped ISPs do just that.  In addition to the actual justification 
and potential technical challenges to getting space the normal way a 
large percentage of small providers also have problems just completing 
the forms and handling the communication with ARIN.

Finally, what if anything do you see that we have done improperly in 
your opinion?  I am providing a very real and documented (I can provide 
the exact block delegations if you really want to see them) benefit to 
smaller providers.  You're holding up a problem that occurred in a 
different RIR which hasn't been documented in the ARIN region and is 
arguably already covered by existing rules.
> Owen
>
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>