[arin-ppml] Advisory Council seeks additional commentary on PP-158

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 9:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Are there any parameters for this game in which the registrant
>> acquires more IP addresses via the 10 distinct blocks? How much more?
>
> In general, the initial assignment will not be where this policy makes a
> significant difference, but, instead, when the applicant runs out of space
> in region G while A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J still have space available.
>
> In the non-discrete case, the applicant would be expected to move space
> from one of the other regions into G to accommodate the need. In the
> discrete case, the applicant is able to apply for an additional prefix for
> region G separate from his utilization in the other regions.

Okay, let me tweak the parameters a little and present a scenario:

1. Registrant creates 8 discrete networks each of which just barely
qualifies for a /24. If ARIN did not treat them as discrete networks,
they would collectively qualify for a single /21.

2. Network A grows quickly while the other 7 stagnate. It now
qualifies for an additional /23. Had ARIN allocated the /21, the
registrant would have had sufficient addresses left in the /21 to
satisfy the demand.

Is that about the size of it? Or am I underselling the downside risk?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the finding of sufficient addresses
left in the /21 is actually in error, isn't it? Because of the /24
backbone boundary, network A would need some pretty wacky routing to
get that to work, would it not?  But that's *only* true if the network
is Internet-connected. For a DN connected only to other private
networks there would be no difference.



>> Are there any parameters where more routes must be announced due to 10
>> distinct blocks? Remember, genuine distinct networks here, the
>> separation can be needless but there is no overt fraud. What about
>> parameters which leave no choice but for the single aggregate approach
>> to introduce more routes?
>
> If the networks have separate routing policies, it will require a minimum of
> 10 announcements anyway. If they are not discrete from a routing policy
> perspective, then, one announcement is possible. In the case where the
> routing policies are distinct, expansion in on network will require additional
> announcement(s) from that network specifically. In the case where the
> routing policies are not distinct, the additional space could be aggregated
> across the networks, at least theoretically.

To me, that sort of implies that rather than asking ARIN to find a
compelling need, we should ask ARIN to confirm that the networks are
in fact discrete in that they do not share a common Internet backbone
access facility. In effect, the fact that the registrant found it
needful to physically connect the networks to the Internet with a
different set of lines *is* the compelling reason.

Here's a potential abuse scenario:

Registrant creates 8 distinct networks, all at the same building or
campus. Gets addresses from ARIN. Drops 7 of the networks' Internet
connections and sets up one of the 8 as an administratively distinct
"ISP" for the other 7.

How does/should the policy deal with that?


Regards,
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