[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 4, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com> wrote:

> On 14-04-04 03:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a /22.  Always!
>> 
>> Depends… End-user /24, ISP multi-homed /22, ISP non-multi-homed /20 IIRC.
> 
> Personally, I still think the above is limiting, eg the small operator who is not multi-homed, and only really needs a /22

For better or worse, the community has advised ISPs needing less than a /22 who are single homed to obtain their space from their upstream provider.

> 
>> 
>>> If an org wants larger than a /22 they need to be able to demonstrate in a reasonable way that they are a larger org with a network size that justifies a larger allocation.  The first way is what allocation do they already have?  If they have say a /19  or equivalent maybe they can demonstrate they need say another /19 by furnishing to ARIN maybe their financials and the investment they have actually made to justify another /19 or whatever.  (I'm just using the /19 as an example.)
> 
> ah.. reasonable way... that is the rub.. I see hosting companies with throw away domains occupying the whole /19 using it as justification for getting another /19 of fresh IP(s) they can rent out.. not to disrupt the thread.. ARIN has a tough time.. what is a legitimate use to one person is maybe not to another.. I am never sure if IP(s) used to generate outbound traffic is a good justification, there are other ways to share an IP Address for outbound.. I think a priority should be somehow worded in that 'inbound' destinations take priority over outbound sources.. eg, you have to advertise a public service that it accessible.. it should take precedence over say someone that uses their IP(s) to generate bulk outbound traffic ..

Since this is commentary on something I quoted, not something I wrote, I’ll not comment further.

Owen