[arin-ppml] Downstreams, needs less than /24 and PI availability

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
>> Hi, Marty.
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>>> There are some symptoms of v4 exhaustion emerging and I think that it
>>> is reasonable to treat them.
>>>
>>
>> I agree with this principle.  But...
>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> Networks that have assigned resources utilized less than 80% in
>>> aggregate must provide their single homed downstream connected
>>> networks IPv4 addresses to number their network into even IF the
>>> downstream has their own provider independent address space AND their
>>> need is longer than /24. ARIN, upon request of a network refused
>>> addresses as a single-homed downstream with provider independent
>>> addresses AND a need longer than /24 must initiate a Section 12 audit
>>> upon a reasonable belief that a violation of this policy has occurred.
>>>
>>> Rationale: Promote overall NRPM compliance capability for "all"
>>> networks, promote efficient use of v4 addresses and to reduce table
>>> bloat.
>>
>> I think such a policy would be a bad idea.  The fundamental problem I have with this text, is that it assumes all downstream customers are equally valuable to the ISP.  For instance, an ISP might wish to reserve IP addresses for a high-margin aspect of their business - perhaps even at the cost of losing other customers.  This policy might result in artificial incentives that ultimately harm the ISP business, reduce competition in the ISP market, etc.

Interesting. When does choice outweigh benefit? Overall, if an ISP
forces a customer to utilize a /24 for the need of something like,
say, 20 hosts, that puts the customer in basic non compliance with
their typical RIR, utilization, and with no avenue to regain their
legitimacy based on current policy. Any thoughts on a "better"
solution in this situation? I agree, choice is key, but this issue
seems to be a bit more tricky to me.

>
> I agree with Benson. I also don't see the benefit to the community

 [ clip ]

Owen, I could propose world peace and because I proposed it, you'd be
against it.

Best,

-M<