[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations forISPs

Steven Ryerse SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Sun Apr 7 16:06:43 EDT 2013


As I have offered in the recent past.  No way should Arin assign me anything (IPv4) very large – I used a /8 in a recent extreme example.  But, as we are a small data center, I should be able to get at least whatever this community deems to be the minimum size.  Arin’s current policies aside, I should be able to get a /22 for sure and maybe a /21 or a /20 – as that is the right size for our organization.  I’m all for right-sized block allocations probably based on a combination of current network size (Legacy included) and revenue or funding size plus things like BGP and so forth factored in.  There are bright folks who can do a better job than me making something like that a policy but a similar change as currently being considered for RIPE should be made for ARIN as well.  Thank you for your input!

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

[Description: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
        Conquering Complex Networks℠

From: Paul Vixie [mailto:paul at redbarn.org]
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 3:50 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: cb.list6; Matthew Kaufman; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations forISPs



Steven Ryerse wrote:
I agree with Mathew and CB.  We do need to move away from conservation at the RIR level as a goal for both ipv4 and ipv6.  Ripe is definitely on the right track with http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03 and I strongly support that.  The same changes should happen for the Arin RIR.

i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the time for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.

so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely unmade as yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as stewards of a public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050 which requires recipients of these public resources to justify their need, no matter whether these resources are coming from a central pool or a private transfer.

paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/965cfc3b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1473 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/965cfc3b/attachment.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list