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

Tony Hain alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Jul 31 22:04:30 EDT 2012

While I think the proposal is fine as written, if it does need tweaking to
move forward, how about shifting the focus from 'required' renumbering to
'encouraged'. One way to implement that would be to set different
utilization requirements. Something like; if you renumber you only need to
meet 2/3 the utilization of when you don't. 

I don't particularly support a waiting requirement, but if one needs to
exist, one year seems more than long enough. There are O^ 250k /24's in the
ARIN pool. You can't process them fast enough for 'handing out like candy'
to be a problem.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:50 PM
> To: George Herbert; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering
> Requirement for Small Multihomers
> On 7/31/12 6:32 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> wrote:
> >> There's been a lot of discussion here about this between Seth and I.
> >> How do others feel about putting in a restriction that subsequent
> >> non-renumbered requests wait one-year after submitting the prior
> >> request?
> >>
> >> Generally, I oppose the idea of a waiting period as an unnecessary
> >> inconvenience both to the requestor and to staff which provides
> >> little, if any benefit to the community. However, if that will help
> >> us move the policy proposal forward with greater consensus, then I
> >> would consider it an acceptable tradeoff. I would like to hear more
> >> from the community about whether such a modification to this proposal
> >> would increase or decrease your willingness to support it.
> >
> > I would like a clearer articulation of the objections.
> >
> > If this does enable "handing out /24s like candy" in some meaningful
> > way then I oppose it, but I am not so far seeing it.  Unless the
> > objections are made more clear I would support it as originally
> > posted.
> >
> >
> I've posed several objections, can you pinpoint the ones you feel are not
> clear?
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list