[arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22

Otis L. Surratt, Jr. otis at ocosa.com
Thu Apr 18 17:21:19 EDT 2013

-----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..
> 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.

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

>> 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...


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list