[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

[David Huberman]

Hello,

For 15 years, ARIN policy (derived from RFC2050) has promoted a dichotomy between provider networks and enterprise networks.  I submit that the dichotomy between enterprises and providers is unbalanced, technically unjustified, and represents poor stewardship.  I believe ARIN Policy should remove the barriers for provider networks who wish to begin numbering their network with space from the Registry.

Under today's Policy framework, it is very easy to get an initial assignment of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a multi-homed enterprise network. Qualifying for a /24 is as simple as having a need to use 64 IPv4 addresses right away, and projecting a need for at least 128 IPv4 addresses within one year.  This Policy is, in this writer's opinion, very good.

Under today's Policy framework, it is not very easy, however, to get an initial allocation of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a multi-homed provider network. Qualifying for the minimum allocation size of a /22 requires the network to already be utilizing a /23 equivalent from other providers or peers, and be willing and able to commit to ARIN to renumbering out of that space before being eligible for an additional allocation.

Normally, I would submit a Draft Policy Proposal to offer a sound policy solution.  Watching PPML over the last 10 years, however, has me shying away from a proposal because I sense there are too many who are against any changes to the IPv4 policy framework.  I am, therefore, posting this message in hopes of taking the temperature of the policy community.

I think a potential policy change is relevant at such a late date because the math clearly shows that the largest networks will be the ones who will be first unable to receive meaningful additional IPv4 address blocks from ARIN. The smallest of networks should be able to receive allocations and assignments from ARIN long after the large networks have exhausted.  I think, therefore, that a fix to what I believe is an unfair policy would be relevant for a  few years going forward.

What do you think?

With regards,
David

[cid:image003.jpg at 01CE813E.732C4680]

DAVID R Huberman
Senior Program Manager
Microsoft GFS

425-777-0259 (w)
david.huberman at microsoft.com




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/10597456/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1819 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/10597456/attachment.jpg>