[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

[Steven Ryerse]

I understand the each new route technical issue but it really is the same as the IPv4 issue vs. the IPv6 issue.  Saying we can’t allow too many IP blocks because of the increase size in the routing table is just like saying IPv4 has only so many IP addresses and if you don’t get one tough.  IPv6 is there and it is a big change but unfortunately necessary.  It will cost everyone money to fix.  Once the routing table gets bigger than the max size of the older routers then they will have to be replaced with bigger newer ones.  That costs money too.  It is inevitable to happen – just a matter of when – just like IPv6.  Everyone who is purchasing routers for this better get one with a higher capacity.  Nothing wrong with trying to manage the process of the routing table getting bigger or too many bits but we shouldn’t tell folks they can’t route the Internet – just like we shouldn't tell folks they can’t have IPv4 addresses when there are still some available.  

If someone gets the smallest IP block like a /22 and sits on them so what.  Anything they get thru this minimum block policy I proposed pales in comparison to the total legacy /8 blocks out there.  Those are already starting to come on the market and will have the effect of making IPv4 last longer as they do.  

It is crazy to expect someone to have to renumber in the real world.  Sounds good in a theoretical discussion on a community board but did you ever have to do one.  No fun and customers will not like it.  It is reasonable for me to get my own block so that my upstream providers don't control the numbers if that is what I want to do.  There is no real good argument that I shouldn't get a minimum block if I can prove I need it.  Larger blocks are a different story but a /22 - that shouldn't be an issue at all!  This community can decide what the minimum block size should be from time to time.  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠


-----Original Message-----
From: Christoph Blecker [mailto:cblecker at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:35 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

Hi Stephen,
The usual procedure most new providers go through would be to go to one of your upstream providers (in your case AT&T or TW Telecom) and request a "portable /24 via BGP, with an LOA". Let's say you got this block from AT&T. You'd then take the LOA (Letter of
Approval/Authorization) to your other provider, in this case TW Telecom, and ask them to add it to their BGP filters. Once you start advertising this block to both upstreams, you have the same redundancy as a PI block. The only restriction would be if you discontinued your customer relationship with AT&T, they would likely require you to return the block to them.

This new assignment, along with your legacy assignment, would bring you up to /23 of non-contiguous space (enough to meet ARIN's requirement). Once you achieve 80% utilization of this space (410 out of 512 IPs) then you will meet ARIN's requirement for getting PI space directly from them.

Yes, there are a number of hoops that the policy makes you jump though to get an initial assignment, but there are very good reasons for these (including routing table size issues, and the want to protect from a shell company starting up, calling themselves an ISP, and immediately eligible for a /22 from ARIN).

Cheers,
Christoph

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> ARIN is a Monopoly.  As a Monopoly ARIN does not have the right to 
> refuse assignment solely because this community has participated in 
> commenting on a policy.  The phone company who also is a monopoly 
> cannot deny me a phone line just because the other folks who already 
> have a phone don’t want me to have one or even a second one.
>
>
>
> Also, I have requested that the policy I proposed be entered and 
> considered by this community and I expect that you or whoever will 
> make that happen.  I have no experience with that so I will need help.
>
>
>
> I would hope that ARIN would Champion someone like me who is trying to 
> go thru proper ARIN channels for resources, instead of forcing someone 
> like me to go around it.  By denying reasonable requests like mine, 
> ARIN is forcing organizations like mine to participate in back-channel 
> IP markets outside of ARIN which per your many comments on the subject – you don’t want to happen.
>
>
>
> It is my opinion that ARIN really doesn’t have authority over Legacy 
> resources that are not under contract with ARIN but that isn’t what is 
> happening here.  I am going thru proper ARIN channels to obtain needed 
> resources and ARIN is refusing to allocate those resources to me.
>
>
>
> I have a need for resources and I HAVE TO FILL THEM TO STAY IN BUSINESS.
> Is ARIN going to honor its Mission Statement and allocate the 
> resources we need or not?
>
>
>
> Also there are a lot of folks out there who are a member of this 
> community.  Many have privately told me that they agree with me but I 
> don’t see them commenting publicly.  I assume they have tried in the 
> past without success and have given up trying.  I would ask them to 
> break their silence and contribute their comments to this subject so 
> that all of the community out there can be heard and not just the vocal minority.
>
>
>
> Steven L Ryerse
>
> President
>
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
>
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
>
> 770.399.9099 - Office
>
> 770.392-0076 - Fax
>
>
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>
>         Conquering Complex Networks℠\