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

[Tony Hain]

I support this proposal, because the existing requirement treads dangerously
close to the dubious grounds of ARIN taking a position on the 'routing
utility' of the assignment at hand. The existing requirement to renumber
basically has ARIN stating that a /23 has more utility in the routing world
than a pair of /24's. While the point is true from a routing slot
consumption perspective (less so from an independent routing policies
perspective), ARIN must officially take a hands-off position about the
utility of the resource being assigned. This proposed policy puts ARIN back
in the position it should have been in all along.

At a higher level, isn't it time to stop rearranging the deck chairs? The
iceberg  has already been hit. IANA has been out of IPv4 pool for 18 months,
APnic is in life-boat mode, and RIPE will be in life-boat mode by Nov. 15.
The fact that ARIN still has pool is an artifact of timing, not masterful
skill at deck-chair arrangement. The routing slots are going to be blown out
by market forces, not contained by some fantasy that people will care about
a historical free-pool policy with a dubious foundation. Get over it, and
move on.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:51 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering
> Requirement for Small Multihomers
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.