[arin-ppml] Initial ISP Allocation Policy

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Randy Carpenter <rcarpen at network1.net> wrote:
> 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.

Hi Randy,

BS. You can add satellite coverage anywhere, and I do mean anywhere.
More, nearly all rural ISPs can contract a private point to point line
to the nearest city with a carrier-neutral data center and pick up
another ISP there.

What you mean is that they can't get a second upstream at a price
that's viable for their customer base. And I'll bet the same thing is
true with IP addresses -- wave money and documentation at the upstream
and see how fast they find more IPs for you. That's life in a
post-IPv4 exhaustion world. If you can't afford it, use carrier NAT.

At any rate, if Daniel ties the two proposals together, I'd bet he'll
sink them both. Since the disucssion seems to focus on unifying
registrant classes rather than reducing minimum allocations, I'd
recommend he split the latter out.

Regards,
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