[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers
Ted Mittelstaedt
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed May 2 03:58:54 EDT 2012
I also disagree with the proposal. Having been through a major IPv4
renumbering with hundreds and hundreds of hosts involved, most of them
NOT under my direct control, and several nameservers that had to be
renumbered also, I simply do not feel that Kevin's assertions
are valid. And on top of it he's talking END USER where the IP's
ARE under the orgs control.
Yes it's difficult to renumber. But, the org renumbering is getting
something for their trouble - that is, they are getting more IP
addresses. Many small end user orgs in the past have
renumbered-and-returned just fine under 4.3.6.2 I don't see that
suddenly in
year 2012 that something new and special has come along that now
makes renumbering impossible for these orgs.
If an org cannot manage to expend a little effort to gain something then
I question that they have even met the bar for an efficiently run
organization that would put the public resource to good use in the
first place.
For extraordinary circumstances, you could write a proposal that would
modify that section to allow the ARIN hostmaster discretion to extend
the time that an end user could return the allocation in the case of
extraordinary circumstances. We are already paying the hostmaster to
make subjective judgements on what constitutes justification for
additional addressing, so I don't see that it would be a burden for them
to make one more subjective judgement on whether the end user org should
be given an extended period of time to renumber and return due to
special circumstances.
But ARIN must put a barrier up to simply request-without-renumber
otherwise the end user orgs will simply not do it. The proposal is
throwing the baby out with the bathwater and has no recognition for
the benefit to the community of forcing orgs to use contiguous
subnets.
Ted
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list