[arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22
owen at delong.com
Fri Apr 19 03:09:46 EDT 2013
On Apr 18, 2013, at 14:21 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis at ocosa.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 10:38 PM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22
> On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:41 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis at ocosa.com>
>> Jumping on ppml late..
>>> 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.
> I see your point and that is a concern as well. So, as runout continues
> do you think it would be advisable to accept any PA space as Randy
I think it would be better to simply eliminate the PA space requirement
and simply require documented need.
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> I see the point here also. I think most that take an IPv6 allocation
> don't immediately deploy so the statistics could be skewed anyway?
> New networks should have the mind set of IPv6 anyway but I agree forcing
> doesn't seem like the best way but then again...
Sure, but I don't see force-feeding as helping that situation. At least if they
asked for it, it's a case of they intended to do something with it or felt that
there was some benefit to having it.
More information about the ARIN-PPML