[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Thu Aug 9 19:37:03 EDT 2012

I do not think there is a vendetta here!  I see no malice coming from ARIN - they have always been professional to us.  I do think there are policies that are slanted against smaller organizations which hopefully I've made clear by now.  As for your comment about scrapping policies, if they discriminate then they should be fixed or scrapped - whatever makes sense.  I'm sure that the expertise available in this community and at ARIN can fix that forthwith if they want to.  

Steven L Ryerse
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: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 6:29 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

On 8/9/12 3:17 PM, Christoph Blecker wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Steven Ryerse 
> <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> Thank you very much for clearing up the record.  I do stand by my 
>> original point that it is not reasonable to deny resources solely 
>> because of organization size.  The BGP policy discriminates against 
>> smaller organizations and that is why I am making such a fuss over 
>> it.  As I mentioned I will be formally submitting my proposed change 
>> to ARIN policies that I submitted in my first post on this subject.  
>> This is the very simple policy that I am going to propose:
>> “Regardless of any other ARIN Policy,  ARIN will allocate an IP block 
>> matching ARIN’s current Minimum IP Block Size, to any organization or 
>> entity that can reasonably demonstrate a need for an IP block.”
> How do you define "reasonably demonstrate"? How would you protect 
> against abuse/fraud (such as setting up a shell company, submitting a 
> request for IPs, and getting them without further justification)? With 
> IPs being a limited resource, would you advocate to reclaim the IPs if 
> they aren't in use (being that getting them from ARIN is so easy)?

We may as well just scrap the whole NRPM if ARIN is granted such an unrestricted override.

While I'm sure the OP thinks the request was reasonable I'm dubious that it was or ARIN would have granted it. I've never seen a case where anyone at ARIN factored in a vendetta as part of a request. Most of us have been through the request process several times, including being turned down.

And besides, we already have immediate need covered in section 4.2.1.

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list