[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/30/12 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:33 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 
>> On 7/25/12 12:27 PM, ARIN wrote:
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5
>>> Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers
>>>
>>> On 19 July 2012 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Removal of
>>> Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers" as a  draft policy for
>>> adoption discussion on the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in
>>> Dallas in October.
>>>
>>> The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "ARIN-prop-167
>>> Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers." Per the
>>> Policy Development Process, the AC submitted text to ARIN for a staff
>>> and legal assessment prior to its selection as a draft policy. Below the
>>> draft policy is the ARIN staff and legal assessment with the text that
>>> was reviewed. The text did not change after the assessment.
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5 is below and can be found at:
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2012_5.html
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2012-5 on the PPML prior to
>>> the October Public Policy Meeting. Discussion on the list and at ARIN
>>> XXX will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine community
>>> consensus for adopting this as policy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Strongly OPPOSE.
>>
>> However, I would support this policy if it was modified to allow all
>> existing IPv4 holders to obtain an additional /24 without justification.
>>
> 
> Can you elaborate on the logic underlying that proposed modification
> and/or the connection between the two?
> 
> It seems rather non-sequitur to me.
> 

It is, and that's the point. If a small multihomer is allowed extra
resources only because they started out as "small" then others should be
able to get another /24 too since many orgs were also "small" at some point.

I would also argue that if an org is asking for more than a /24 they're
no longer a "small multihomer" anyway. 2012-5 appears to have no merit
beyond "renumbering is hard", therefore I oppose it.

~Seth