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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/2/2012 11:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.

yeah, yeah please stop with the 8.3 gong banging.

> 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.

I would submit that most orgs that start with a /24 either are low-to-no
growth and will never really need anything beyond the /24, or they
have a good enough mousetrap that people are clawing for what they
have and they can easily justify jumping from a /24 to a /22 on the
first go around.

> 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.
>

More gong banging.

Do you know how much it costs today in the US to setup a corporation?

If it's worth it that much to the small org to keep it's /24 and not
renumber, then go for it!  They will make some lawyer happy and
pay for the down payment on his yacht.  Then a year later when they
want to use a /23 mask internally they will have screwed themselves.

Meanwhile their competitors will spend the money on a better network 
infrastructure and be done with their renumbering.

I seem to remember you always advising this approach when it came
to shifting from IPv4 to IPv6, Owen.

>> 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.
>

Yeah well I get that your POed about 8.3 - write a policy proposal to
fix it, please, and stop trying to make every other policy proposal
discussion a referendum on 8.3

Ted

> Owen
>
>