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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 7 11:12:58 EDT 2011

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.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.
> I agree with Benson. I also don't see the benefit to the community of
> requiring the ISP to give PA space unless the end user is willing to
> return their PI space to the free pool. All you would accomplish is
> to transfer additional resources forcibly from the ISP to the end
> user, benefiting the end-user but doing nothing for the community
> or the ISP.
> Owen
> [kjk] This sounds to me like ARIN trying to govern business models for
> member entities and I think it is a bad idea.  Speaking as an ISP if my

Well, if they didnt already do this, I would agree with you for the most part.

> customers need PA space I am more than happy to provide it for them at a
> nominal cost.  I am sure this is the case at most if not all ISP's.  I
> haven't heard of too many ISP's that turn down business customers are
> willing to pay for. The customer is of course always free to seek a
> different ISP.

Economic power comes into play in your thinking in that some networks
have the economic power to do what they please with respect to choice.
Others, not so much. In that case, this kind of "practice" is not
typically in anyones interest and all it seems to do is throw matches
on the common burning up a slot and wasting "significant" resources
that could be used to help foster transition.

Not really anything much more to say. Thanks. It's nice to be out of
the transfer/RSA/LRSA infinite loop for a bit. :-)



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list