[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Mon Apr 30 22:22:03 EDT 2012

On 4/30/12, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
> May I ask for the record if you believe that the circumstances have changed
> as we approach run out of free pools throughout the world and the
> expectation may be that smaller blocks will need to be routed in order to
> enable new entrants into the Internet.

Hi Bill,

The circumstances continue to evolve and frankly I'd be interested to
learn what the ground game at APNIC looks like now that they've been
cruising without a free pool for a while. For the moment, though, I
thought it was a superb idea to lower the minimum assignment to /24
with a renumbering requirement for assignments smaller than the prior
minimum and I continue to think it's a great idea.

> Why would allowing the recipients under to keep the /24 and justify
> another block be bad?  Would it be an option to simply request that they
> renumber into a larger block but accept some exceptions? Under what
> circumstances would those exceptions be acceptable to you?

I could probably be talked into the idea that an org may only hold a
single assignment smaller than /22 but is not required to renumber out
of that assignment when requesting a /22 or larger. In other words,
you can't just request another /24 and grow by costly little nibbles
at the RIB.

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list