[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers
heather.skanks at gmail.com
Mon Jul 30 16:37:57 EDT 2012
Staff can clarify if I get this wrong.. but I believe that deletion of
220.127.116.11 would not have the effect of removing all justification
requirements for additional assignment for Small Mulithomers -
instead, they would have to qualify for additional assignment under
18.104.22.168 Utilization Requirements for Additional Assignment
In order to justify an additional assignment, end-users must have
efficiently utilized at least 80% of all previous assignments, and
must provide ARIN with utilization details. The prefix size for an
additional assignment is determined by applying the policies found in
Section 4.3 of the NRPM.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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.
> 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