[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Fri Aug 10 21:40:21 EDT 2012

I agree with much of Jimmy's points.  I'd like to see ISPs that are already
dual-homed and that can prove immediate need for a /24 AND with near-term
plan for at least a /22 to be reserved a full /22 and immediately get the
first /24 out of that /22.  They then have a one year time period to
document additional need, such that as their business grows they can obtain
additional (consecutive) space out of that /22.  

But I have one concern about this idea: what about those who never plan to
need more than a /24 or /23 but apply under this policy only so that they
aren't stuck with one of their ISP's assigned space?


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Jimmy Hess
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:48 AM
To: William Herrin
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP Address Policy

On 8/9/12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Blecker <cblecker at gmail.com>
> Well, hold on a minute.
> We've long held that BGP multihoming is sufficient justification for
> an ISP to assign a /24 to a customer regardless of the customer's host
> count.  Right?

Right, as long as they show the evidence of building a multihomed
network, and have the proper arrangements with the ISP, and get no /24
from anywhere else,  the ISP should allocate them a /24  when

> But so far we've only considered end-users. What about ISP startups?
> Doesn't some form of the same reasoning apply to a *multihomed* ISP
> startup?

It doesn't really help an ISP that already has a legacy /24
and who is taking issue with the  Slow Start policy, disqualifying them from
obtaining a /22    based on their 12 month projected / predicted
customer base size, etc, etc.

Although I would say that it would seem reasonable to revise Slow
Start,  so that:

Demonstrating proof of multihoming, immediate need for  80% of  a
/23,  and the normal 3 months justification for a /22,  should be
sufficient to obtain an allocation of the minimum ISP allocation unit
size (/22).

I would say that renumbering requirements associated with allocating
/24s are too burdensome for ISPs, because where they are not the end
user assigned the addresses --  that means they have to force customer
networks to renumber.
ISPs should not be granted such small allocations by ARIN in place of
their upstream..  the /22 minimum is appropriate.

I doubt that an ISP startup requiring only a /24 is common.  They will
very quickly need more than a /24,  or they probably won't be in
business for too long.

Allocation churn or multiple prefixes for the same org issued at the
RIR level in a short period of time is bad,  and issuing overly small
IPv4 allocations to startup ISPs could promote that.

I> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
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