[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers
michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
Tue Jul 31 16:40:23 EDT 2012
On 7/31/12 12:29 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 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.
As this paragraph shows, renumbering is not a zero-cost activity, for an
entity of any size. It required planning and some level of work by a
clueful person or persons. I agree with you that phrases like
"renumbering is hard," "burdensome," or "renumbering sucks" do not
necessarily form the basis of good policy. However, good policy
shouldn't impose costs on smaller actors while allowing larger actors to
impose costs on the "routing table commons." There should be more
uniformity in such restrictions. Moreover, building on Tony's points,
the /24 horse left the barn long ago, well before the policy that 2012-5
seeks to mitigate was put into NRPM.
For these reasons, I support 2012-5.
More information about the ARIN-PPML