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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/31/12 1:40 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
> 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.
> 


Justification, planning, and "doing your homework" should be a
fundamental basis of any request to ARIN for resources.

I'm fine with /24s. I understand routing table size is argued a lot but
that's honestly not part of my thought process here. In fact, I argued
heavily with Verizon about carrying IPv6 /48s (which they do now). If
anything I'd like to see IPv4 assignments specifically for anycasting
(/23 deagg'd or /24) allowed by policy.

But I'd prefer not make /24s like unlimited free candy on a low shelf.

~Seth