[arin-ppml] Ip allocation

Tue Apr 29 12:04:27 EDT 2014

Sure, but sending it in without prior discussion will result in
another bride of Frankenstein.

One way to do this in a simple and parse-able way could be to change
the minimum allocation unit in 4.2.1.5 from the reference to a /22 to
a /24.

Best,

-M<

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin, can you file that as a (better, quicker) policy proposal then?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The original topic of this thread requires anequivalent  "one word"
>> change.  /20 to N in one place in the NRPM.
>>
>> That has support. 207 will hopefully receive "vigorous" opposition.
>>
>> Emergencies should demand simple non controversial changes. This isn't it.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 28, 2014, <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Andrew and Derek,
>>>
>>> I attended ARIN33 and met with Andrew Dul and three other members of the
>>> AC to discuss the need for IPv4 numbers for new entrants following ARIN
>>> runout.  As a result of this issue, we have collaborated to create a
>>> draft policy
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_207_orig.html
>>>
>>> to solve the problem as indicated by Andrew Dul.  This policy will solve
>>> three problems that I can see:
>>>
>>> 1) sets up a pool of IP's, size /10, for new entrants, once ARIN runs
>>> out.  My interpretation is that, now that
>>> ARIN is down to a /8, this leaves 4 /10's.  ARIN will chew through 3
>>> /10's and when it hits the 4th, this /10 will
>>> be used for new entrants and companies like Derek's to get additional
>>> IP's;
>>>
>>> 2) it sets the obtainable block size at a minimum of a /28, with a
>>> maximum of a /22, for an entity;
>>>
>>> 3) it is a one time allocation;  once a company makes a claim for
>>> resources under this policy, it cannot make a second claim.
>>>
>>> I commend Andrew Dul for his speed, accuracy, and effectiveness in
>>> getting this draft out.  Great job!  Although the policy is not perfect
>>> in terms of content, (I would normally be opposed to the needs
>>> language), it is an emergency situation, and an excellent compromise
>>> that meets most requirements of progressive internet thinkers.
>>>
>>> I support this policy and encourage immediate adoption.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Sandra Brown
>>> IPv4 Market Group
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> A proposal has been submitted into the PDP process based upon feedback
>>> and breakout discussions that occurred at the last meeting. I believe
>>> this proposal may help with the issue which started this thread.
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_207_orig.html
>>>
>>> There is also another group of folks working on a proposal to update
>>> section 4.2.2 based upon feedback received at the meeting and the policy
>>> experience report
>>>
>>> (https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_33/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf)
>>> presented at the meeting. I suspect we will also have another proposal
>>> submitted to the policy development process shortly.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/28/2014 5:16 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>> > I agree it is past time to do this as it is ARIN's reason to exist to
>>> > allocate.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Steven Ryerse
>>> > President
>>> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
>>> > www.eclipse-networks.com
>>> > 770.656.1460 - Cell
>>> > 770.399.9099- Office
>>> >
>>> > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>>> > Conquering Complex Networks?
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> > Behalf Of David Huberman
>>> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:13 PM
>>> > To: Michael Peddemors; arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ip allocation
>>> >
>>> > Full support. Making a single ISP initial allocation criteria that
>>> > opens a /22 (or more!) to all first timers would be about 10 years past due,
>>> > but still helpful to the community ARIN serves.
>>> >
>>> > David R Huberman
>>> > Microsoft Corporation
>>> > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>>> >
>>> > ________________________________________
>>> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf
>>> > of Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com>
>>> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:45:20 PM
>>> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ip allocation
>>> >
>>> > Actually, this is timely, and you probably started at the right place,
>>> > what would be needed though is for someone to write up a draft resolution to
>>> > this affect, to change current policies.
>>> >
>>> > I was just talking to several parties regarding the same issue, and
>>> > while there might have been justification in the past, when routing issues
>>> > were a greater concern than running out of IPv4 space, but given the current
>>> > situation, maybe it is time to rethink this policy.
>>> >
>>> > In the mean time, you are faced in getting two upstream providers to
>>> > route to your prospective /22. I know, it doesn't make too much sense that
>>> > the small guy should bear the burden of extra costs etc.. for being honest
>>> > about his projected requirements..
>>> >
>>> > Any other support out there for policy changes in this area?
>>> >
>>> > On 14-04-28 04:33 PM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
>>> >> Hello all, I will be brief as possible. I need assistance with either
>>> >> requesting a policy change or an appeal/exception to current policy.
>>> >>
>>> >> I started business in 1995 with 4 Class C's assigned from Integra (
>>> >> /22 ). I am a full service IT provider offering pretty much
>>> >> everything but connectivity. Over the years I have developed my
>>> >> network such that I am using my IP's very efficiently. Host headers
>>> >> on most web sites, internal IP's whenever possible, and of course
>>> >> certain thing must be static, single IP's on a host.
>>> >>
>>> >> I am moving in less then a year to a new office, and taking the
>>> >> opportunity to get on the ATT fiber backbone rather then 4 bonded
>>> >> T-1's from Integra (which is very expensive) Integra tells me I can
>>> >> not take my IP's with me, and ATT tells me the largest block they will
>>> >> give me is a single class C.
>>> >>
>>> >> So I went out to Arin and setup my account and requested a /22 which
>>> >> was denied because the smallest block they will give a single homed
>>> >> ISP is a
>>> >> /20 (4096 ip's)
>>> >>
>>> >> I feel like I am being penalized for using my IP's efficiently!! As I
>>> >> see it, I only have one option: Rework my network so every site I
>>> >> host uses it's own dedicated IP so that I can justify needing a
>>> >> /20...in which case I feel I would be doing the internet community a
>>> >> disservice.
>>> >>
>>> >> Can anyone provided feedback on how to better resolve this? How do I
>>> >> start getting the policy changed? Is there a process I can go through
>>> >> to get an exemption? Would excalation my request be of any use?
>>> >>
>>> >> With the IP 4 space dwindling, wouldn't it be a better policy to allow
>>> >> small business to get only what they need?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Derek Calanchini
>>> >> Owner
>>> >> Creative Network Solutions
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________________
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> 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:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com