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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/31/12 12:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 20:50 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
> 
> In most cases, no... Usually they're wanting to come back 2-3 years
> after getting their /24. Many of these organizations are very small
> community networks, neighbornets, and the like.
> 
> No, it's not hundreds of orgs, nor is it one or two. It's a relatively small
> number (i.e. not likely to be a significant routing table problem), but more
> than a few.
> 

I would argue there's no reason to change policy for a few orgs when the
majority aren't affected by current policy in a negative way. There will
always be at least one.


>> 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.
>>
> 
> It was a restriction put in to get a policy to enable them to get space at
> all while appeasing the table-growth fanatics. Now we have evidence
> that the table growth fears are utter nonsense, so the burden doesn't
> make sense and we're seeking to improve the policy and make it more
> even handed for all recipients.
> 

Routing table growth is not a consideration it in my opposition of this
policy change. The worst I see with table growth is that /24s could
start to become unroutable, but that's not a policy problem either.


>> 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?
>>
> 
> I don't think it is either bad planning or lack of awareness and I find your
> prejudices about this to be somewhat condescending.
> 

So far it's been emotional appeals (I pointed out the two I didn't like
seeing) to have the requirement removed, none of which I see as a basis
to change policy.


> I don't know why you assume they haven't been educated. Knowing doesn't change
> the fact that once you assign a bunch of /28s, /29s, and /32s to customers,
> it's hard to renumber them all in order to get more space or the fact that
> it is an unreasonable burden that unfairly stacks the deck against these
> smaller organizations that are NOT a serious threat to the routing table.
> 

I've been there and done that with two PA /24s I don't think it was a
burden, unfair, or stacked the deck against me. I expected it from the
start and planned accordingly. 12 months was *plenty* of time to
renumber. Based on my own experience with renumbering small networks I
can't agree with the hardship argument. I would agree that having to
renumber a larger network (/22 or shorter) becomes a logistical
nightmare, but not a /24 within 12 months.


>> 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.
> 
> I could probably live with this. However, would you be willing to compromise
> to 18 months? Remember, they have to do the initial justification based on
> only 12 months (or in some cases 3).
> 


I'm only aware of a three-month rule for allocations, not end-user
assignments, and the /24 is only mentioned under assignments.

In 4.3.3 it says "Requesters must show exactly how previous address
assignments have been utilized and must provide appropriate details to
verify their one-year growth projection." Are any orgs requesting a /24
using it as their first foray (and if so, how are they showing previous
assignments) or are they always coming from longer PA prefixes? A PA /24
can be justified with nothing more than stating "I intend to multihome".

I suppose I'd support 18 months but would strongly prefer 24. If an org
is requesting additional space near the two year mark then I feel it
shows they've planned appropriately. If they're asking for more in short
order I feel it's inappropriate because their justification should have
said they would have been fine for at least a year (50%), and they can
probably justify a /22 to renumber into or should have justified a /22
from the beginning.

When I think of a "small" org I think of all the ones I've dealt with in
the past and present that could easily survive on a single /24 for
years, if not for the life of the org. I *do not* see it as "starter" PI
space that they'd quickly outgrow.

Place renumber-and-return under a timeframe plus remove the appeals to
emotion from the proposal and I'd reconsider my opposition.

~Seth