[arin-ppml] Bootstrapping new entrants after IPv4 exhaustion
owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 21 19:48:09 EST 2013
I like option 2 a WHOLE LOT more than option 1.
I dislike intensely the idea of suggesting that people get space from people that are not providing network access services to them.
For such events, I believe a transfer should be used instead of reassignments/reallocations of PA space to non subscribers.
I would also support allowing ARIN to issue down to /24 to single-homed organizations that can document their inability to get space from their upstream provider. In such a case, I would support ARIN issuing down to a /24 even if the size of the network does not justify a /24.
In other words, if you need a /28 and your provider is unable to issue a /28 to you, you could go to ARIN and get a /24 with documentation of those facts.
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> During the discussion in Phoenix of Draft Policy 2013-7 (which I've since updated and will be sending back out to PPML shortly), and in other discussions before and since, it has become apparent that small networks may not qualify for transfers and be unable to get space from their upstreams after RIR and ISP IPv4 free pools run out.
> In order to address this issue, a few different ideas have come up, so I wanted to bring some of them up to the community for discussion and see which possible solutions might have community support.
> Here are a couple of the ideas that've come up so far:
> 1) For smaller allocations than ARIN’s minimum, orgs “should request space from their upstream provider _or another LIR_” (add underlined text to NRPM 126.96.36.199).
> This would clarify that it's fine for organizations to get space reassigned to them by any other LIR if their upstream ISPs are no longer able to provide them the space they need.
> 2) Lower the minimum allocation sizes to /22 single-homed and /24 multihomed for both ISPs and end-users. This would mean updating NRPM 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 (and would allow removal of NRPM 4.9 as redundant.)
> Before the implementation of CIDR, many /24 allocations were made to organizations that are no longer using them. Current ARIN transfer policy states that the minimum transfer size is a /24, but it's not clear in policy whether an single-homed organization that needs a small block (/24 to /21) would actually qualify to receive such a block via transfer. (Perhaps staff input here would be useful.) In any event, reducing the minimum allocation sizes would allow organizations of all types to receive the size of address block they actually need, either via transfer or from ARIN's inventory of returned space.
> Thoughts? Do you support either or both of these ideas? Would one or both of them be worth submitting as a policy proposal?
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML