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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:22 PM
>> To: Martin Hannigan
>> Cc: Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Downstreams, needs less than /24 and PI
>> availability
>>
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > [ snip ]
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> How should a network meet their utilization requirements and how
>> >>> should ARIN foster aggregation per "RFC 2050" and "ICP-2" then? If I
>> >>> have to use a /24 for a miniscule amount of addressing needs what's my
>> >>> relief valve in policy then? GTL?
>> >
>> >> [kjk] The network should apply to their provider for PA space.  If the
>> >> provider won't give it to them they should get a new provider.
>> >
>> > Really? What if all providers do this?
>>
>> An unlikely scenario at best.
>>
>> Making policy based on FUD is rarely useful and almost always contrary
>> to the good of the community.
>>
>> Owen
> [kjk] Owen always cuts to the heart of the matter and says thing more
> efficiently than I.  Thanks Owen.
> [/kjk]

You mean "cuts the heart". And kills the patient.

I wouldn't have brought this topic up if it wasn't _already happening_
and beginning to gain some momentum. In thinking about it, it probably
won't impact my employer so much as it will impact smaller networks.
I'm happy to waste a /24 and a burn a routing slot on each denial if
that's what the ARIN community wants me to do.

Thanks!

-M<