[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy
rcarpen at network1.net
Mon Jul 22 13:56:31 EDT 2013
I strongly disagree with your disagreement :-) and fully support the proposed changes.
I have worked with several small rural ISPs who really only have one option for upstream connectivity. In most cases, the upstream refuses to give out any more IP addresses. Some of these ISPs would be fine with a /21, while others would need a /20, but cannot get a aggregate /20 from the upstream.
----- Original Message -----
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alexander, Daniel
> <Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> > * Minimum allocation for a single-homed ISP is reduced from a /20 to /22.
> > * Minimum assignments for a single-homed end user is reduced from a /20 to
> > a /22.
> Hi Daniel,
> I strongly disagree with these two proposed changes. There is no
> technical penalty for allowing multihomed registrants to get their
> addresses directly from ARIN: their routes will be present in the BGP
> table regardless of where they get the addresses. This is not true of
> single-homed end users who would generally not have a presence in the
> BGP table unless they get their addresses from the RIR.
> As we've discussed principles in recent weeks, we have broad agreement
> that it's ARIN's job to make scalable routing possible. Right now,
> that means having single-homed users get their numbers from their
> upstream. The changes would run counter without apparent gain in one
> of the other areas discussed as candidate principles.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> 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