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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/30/12 1:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Seth,
> 
> You appear to misunderstand the nature of the proposal.
> 
> We are not allowing small multihomers to get additional space without justification.
> 
> We are allowing them to get a second /24 instead of having to return the first one and exchange it for a /23.
> 
> The point of any PI subsequent allocation without returning your initial space and exchanging it for a larger block boils down to "renumbering is hard".  The question is whether it's worth having some sort of magic line at /22 that pre-supposes that renumbering is sufficiently harder above that threshold to somehow magically justify not returning and renumbering while still requiring it below that threshold.
> 


I understand the nature, I just have a different opinion on the
motivation behind it. Are these orgs requesting more address space
within a timeframe they could have justified a /22 for in the first
place? Are they picking the /24 as an easy entry point and are then
upset there's strings attached that could have been avoided? Are
hundreds of orgs bumping up against the renumber clause or is it just
one or two being loud about it?

I see too many appeals to emotion with the use of phrases like "forced
to suffer the pain and expense of renumbering" (from ARIN staff
comments, which to me indicate an emotional appeal devoid of any
technical merit). The rationale statement itself uses "undue burden of
renumbering" when it was a known restriction in the beginning. A small
multihomer with a /24 was *already* unique just be being able to have a
/24 with practically no justification. To get the /24 they just have to
say "I'm going to multihome!" and leave it at that. Then later they go
"oh, I want more and the internet is being unfair to me". If, for
example, they're blowing through their /24 in a matter of months and
suddenly want more they should not have received a /24 in the first place.

Instead of altering policy to cater to what may simply be bad planning
or lack of awareness, I would suggest that this policy be abandoned and
in its place have orgs receiving a /24 attest that they acknowledge that
a) if they require more space in the future they must return and
renumber and b) if they have any inkling of growth they should do their
homework first to see if they can justify a /22. ARIN started doing the
officer attestation thing in the face of runout, why not educate first
instead of jumping straight to altering policy?

Or, another suggestion I would consider supporting depending on how it's
worded: in place of dropping the renumber requirement completely change
it to say that if they request for more space is within 24 months of the
original request then they must renumber and return. If they've had
their /24 for longer than 24 months only then will the renumber and
return requirement be waived.

~Seth