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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Apr 8 13:29:53 EDT 2011

On Apr 8, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

> 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.
I'll humbly say that you are not correct. I have worked with many ISPs and consulted for many organizations
to help them through the ARIN process and to obtain address space under ARIN policies.

The policy that allowed a /20 has been changed and the boundary is much lower (/24). If they are not
multi-homed, then, you are correct, the bar is still set at /20 (still a relatively low threshold for an
ISP to meet). I would support policy to move that bar closer to /24 (possibly even all the way to /24).

Since you're providing services to these guys, what's the meaningful difference between giving them
a block after collecting all the justification from them, vs. helping them put the justification together
and sending it to ARIN so they can get their own block?

> 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.

I didn't say you've done anything improperly. Just that the service you've been providing in that area
is no longer necessary due to recent ARIN policy changes and that IMHO, it is better for those
providers to get their space directly from ARIN.

I have, actually seen transient examples of what appear to be organizations operating as LIRs for
snowshoe spammers within the ARIN region, but, nothing which I could trace to a smoking gun
or prove, so, I will refrain from making any specific accusations. However, I believe that the current
policy does not match the current staff practice and this disparity needs to be corrected.

Under the existing policy, staff could be forced to issue addresses to such operations based on
a relatively thin facade. This change would close that loophole and brings the policy in line
with current staff practice.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list