[arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22

[Randy Carpenter]

----- Original Message -----
> Jumping on ppml late..
> 
> Randy,
> 
> >1. Be an ISP with *any* amount of space from an upstream
> 
> I'm not so sure this would be advisable? Wouldn't it be better to have
> at least a /24?  Or is this what you had in mind?

A /24 would not be too much of a hurdle, so that would be fine. Most of the frustrating examples I have seen are small ISPs that have a /22 or a /21, but are not multi-homed. They are expanding to the point of needing more space, e.g. they have a /21, but need a /20. They don't already have a /20, so they can't get the /20. The upstream ISP will not issue them any more space. I have seen this on several occasions.

Some have chosen to get multi-homed, but for some, multi-homing (at least to different upstreams) is not possible.

Looking at the NRPM more closely, I think it would be pretty a simple to have a policy change that simply reduced the amount of PA space required for a single-homed ISP to /24, but also require justification for a full /22. Basically, even the playing field for single-home and multi-home, since there is now a situation where ARIN has available address space, but upstream ISPs seem not to have (or unwilling to provide).


The one situation that is still left hanging by this is a brand new ISP, which can not get any PI space at all, since they have no upstream space yet. It may be as hard for them to get new PA space as it is existing ISPs to get additional PA space.

I understand the intent of the current NRPM, which is to prevent every Joe Wannabe with a day-old certificate of incorporation from snagging up space that they may never actually use. However, when if reach the point that upstream ISPs across the board refuse to hand out any space at all, and there is still space in ARIN's free pool, I think that may need to be revisited as well. I don't think we are quite there yet (assuming we make the previously mentioned changes to only require a /24 of PA space).

-Randy