[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

Alexander, Daniel Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Tue Jul 16 13:29:57 EDT 2013

Hello David,

I touched on this issue back in April and think this is a topic worth
discussing. As Chris mentioned in his reply, it is related to
2013-5:LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions, but I think this is a larger
concept that the definitions will play a part.

The lines between ISP's, end-user, and all other networks are blurry.
There are global end-user networks that dwarf the networks of many ISP's.
There are ISP networks serving ISP networks who serve ISP networks. And
there are service networks that cross the boundaries of both definitions.
I would contend that they all fall into a more generalized definition of
Organizations operating networks providing connectivity to their users.
Those users can be any number of things like members of a community,
customers paying for a service, a student on campus, a hosting customer,
or HR department. 

Before everyone nitpicks the paragraph above, I would like to clarify,
that I don't think the distinctions should be abandoned. I simply think
they should be refocused to what is relevant to an RIR. There are two
general principles being discussed in 2013-4: RIR Principles that I think
people can agree upon. One is that an RIR should make unique assignments.
The other is that they should be able to keep track of them. I left this
vague because I don't want to cross the streams of the two conversations.

The point I'm trying to make is that the distinction between the network
definitions may apply to how the resource assignments should be tracked,
but they should be less of a factor in how the resources are obtained.
This becomes even more relevant in todays world where transfers will soon
outnumber assignments/allocations, and we see organizations redefining
what they are in order to save on member fees, or meet different
qualifying requirements. I think there should be a single set of
parameters regarding minimum allocation size, timeframes, utilization
requirements, and qualifying requirements.

Somewhere we blurred the lines of how resources are allocated with how
they should be tracked and the result is the dichotomy you mentioned. I
also feel that this creation of classes is contrary to the stewardship our
RIR policies should provide. As this discussion continues to develop I
would like to see the distinction between PI and PA allocations and
assignment requirements be removed. I would suggest they all be resource
allocations that are given to a network operator, with possibly different
requirements as to how they should be tracked.

Thank you for reviving this conversation.

Dan Alexander
Speaking only for myself

From:  David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
Date:  Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:34:07 +0000
To:  "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject:  [arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

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 today¹s 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 writer¹s opinion, very good.
Under today¹s 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 R Huberman
Senior Program Manager

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

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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list