[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 17:15:22 EDT 2013


On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

>  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?
>

I think that's right in line with what is being discussed wrt ARIN-2013-5
"LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions". Have you followed that discussion?
Sounds like you may want to.

Cheers,
~Chris


> ****
>
> ** **
>
> With regards,****
>
> David****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> *DAVID R Huberman***
>
> *Senior Program Manager ***
>
> Microsoft GFS****
>
> 425-777-0259 (w)****
>
> david.huberman at microsoft.com****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/0050a2d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130715/0050a2d6/attachment.jpg>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list