[arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user

[Steven Ryerse]

So then the logical question that I would ask is:  As a matter of current policy and practice does Arin first require an organization that requests say a /17 to request one first from a larger say /12 upstream before Arin will allocate the block, or maybe a /14 from an upstream /8, or /whatever from a larger upstream /whatever?  What if the larger upstream refuses the smaller organization the requested size block?  Does Arin require larger allocation holders to honor smaller allocation requests as a condition of their allocation?  What about an organization who runs BGP and needs an independent block but their upstream doesn't want to permanently give them what they consider a large portion of their own assigned block because it is somewhat difficult for them to get more resources from Arin?

And most importantly if this is current policy, does Arin actually enforce it every time for every organization no matter what their size or the size of their request?  If not then fair is fair and everyone should be treated equally albeit adjusted for their size and the size of their request.

From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:04 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Clean up definition of LIR/ISP vs. end-user

On Apr 30, 2013, at 9:45 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com<mailto:SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>> wrote:


It means that allocations should be made by a combination of the size of the organization and the size of their network and maybe the total size of their current allocations.  There should never be a time when the allocation by Arin is zero.  Arin's mission is to allocate - and it isn't to not allocate.

We run a small data center and we run BGP and should easily be able to qualify for a /22 (which I believe is the current minimum block size Arin allocates per current policy) and maybe even qualify for a /21. ...  We were denied a /22 allocation - the minimum size this "community" has decided to allocate - because of "policy"

This is why it is important to remember that such a practice originated even before
ARIN's formation, and it is not about conservation of address space as much as it
is about encouraging routing aggregation by making use of hierarchical addressing
(as described in the following text from RFC 2050, November 1996) -

" ISPs who exchange routing information with other ISPs at multiple
   locations and operate without default routing may request space
   directly from the regional registry in its geographical area. ...

   To facilitate hierarchical addressing, implemented using Classless
   Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR), all other ISPs should request address
   space directly from its upstream provider.  "

Whether such a practice is still relevant certainly should be discussed by the community,
but encouraging use of address space from the upstream provider has been fundamental
principle of the Internet Registry System since inception.   ARIN reflects this for IPv4
in NRPM 4.1.1 (General Principles/Routability) and in the initial ISP allocation policy.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130501/9116ab2d/attachment.htm>