[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  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


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list