[arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:41 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis at ocosa.com> wrote:

> 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?
> 

In at least one case, part of the problem is he can't even get a /24 from his
upstreams. This will become a more and more prevalent problem as runout
continues to progress.

>> 2. Be able to justify a 3-month need for a /22
>> 3. Have upstream ISPs that refuse to hand out any more PA space (which
> appears to be the rule rather than the exception now) (I'm not sure how
> one would go about proving this, but I have seen situations where the
> upstream would likely write a letter of support)

I'm not sure we need to include this as a criteria anyway.

>> 4. Be forced to take an automatic IPv6 allocation (at whatever
> NRPM-supported size is appropriate (preferably /32 min.))

I'm not sure I buy this, either. As much as I support IPv6 and favor increased
IPv6 rollout (the sooner we're off v4 the better we will all be), I don't believe
that inflicting IPv6 allocations on people that aren't ready to ask for them does
anything other than skew statistics.

Owen
>