[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

[Owen DeLong]

> 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.
> 

Uh, no, Ted, they haven't. Please refer back to Leslie's policy experience report.

> 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

Why is that so bad? Today, an organization that needs a /20 is free to go out and purchase 16 discreet /24s and advertise all of them.
We're talking about an organization that started with a /24 or a /23 expanding to a maximum of 4 /24s before the policy becomes moot
anyway. In fact, the current way for an organization that has a /24 and doesn't want to renumber to get to having 2 /24s worth of space is quite simple. Entity A creates corporation B and multihomes corporation B. Entity A moves half of their need into corporation B to qualify for an ARIN /24, then moves corporation B back inside Entity A through section 8.2.

> throwing the baby out with the bathwater and has no recognition for
> the benefit to the community of forcing orgs to use contiguous
> subnets.
> 

But there is no baby and the bathwater appears to smell pretty foul at this point.

Org's today aren't forced to use contiguous subnets. With 8.3, that's only going to get a whole lot worse going forward.

Owen