[arin-ppml] policy proposal/min. Allocation/assignment

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Tue Apr 29 14:35:34 EDT 2014


I support this proposal.

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Apr 29, 2014 2:30 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>         arin-ppml at arin.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum   Allocation/Assignment
>       units to /24 (David Conrad)
>    2. Re: Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment
>       units to /24 (Andrew Sullivan)
>    3. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (David Farmer)
>    4. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (Skylar MacMinn)
>    5. Re: NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough? (Leslie Nobile)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:22:30 -0700
> From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, policy at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
>         Allocation/Assignment units to /24
> Message-ID: <2FEB6B2D-D7F2-4371-94FE-9F7F700E24C4 at virtualized.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Support.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
> >
> >       1.      Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum
> Allocation/Assignment units to /24
> >       2.      Proposal Originator
> >               a.      name: Owen DeLong
> >               b.      email: owen at delong.com
> >               c.      telephone: 408-890-7992
> >               d.      organization: Hurricane Electric
> >       3.      Date: 29 April, 2014
> >       4.      Problem Statement:
> > As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be
> unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from
> ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to make
> policy more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we should
> reduce the minimum assignment and allocation units to /24 across the board.
> >       5.      Policy statement:
> > Change the minimum allocation and assignment unit for all IPv4 single
> and multi homed instances to /20. This would include:
> >
> > 4.2.1.5 Change all occurrences of /20 and /22 to /24
> > 4.2.2.1.1 Change all occurrences of /20 to /24, and change 16 /24s to 1
> /24. Remove the example about 12 /24s.
> > 4.3.2.1       Change both occurrences of /20 to /24
> > 4.9   Change /22 to /24
> > 4.9.1 Change all instances of /22 to /24. Remove the reference to 4 /24s.
> >
> >       6.      Comments:
> >               a.      Timetable for implementation: Immediate, possibly
> through board action.
> >               b.      Anything else
> >
> > END OF TEMPLATE
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140429/ae7baf44/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 495 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140429/ae7baf44/attachment-0001.bin
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:23:55 -0400
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
>         Allocation/Assignment units to /24
> Message-ID: <20140429182354.GP1324 at mx1.yitter.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I support this.
>
> A
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:58:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
> >
> >       1.      Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum
> Allocation/Assignment units to /24
> >       2.      Proposal Originator
> >               a.      name: Owen DeLong
> >               b.      email: owen at delong.com
> >               c.      telephone: 408-890-7992
> >               d.      organization: Hurricane Electric
> >       3.      Date: 29 April, 2014
> >       4.      Problem Statement:
> > As we approach runout, more and more end users and smaller ISPs will be
> unable to obtain space from their upstreams and will be seeking space from
> ARIN. In order to meet these needs to the extent possible and to make
> policy more fair to a broader range of the ARIN constituency, we should
> reduce the minimum assignment and allocation units to /24 across the board.
> >       5.      Policy statement:
> > Change the minimum allocation and assignment unit for all IPv4 single
> and multi homed instances to /20. This would include:
> >
> > 4.2.1.5 Change all occurrences of /20 and /22 to /24
> > 4.2.2.1.1 Change all occurrences of /20 to /24, and change 16 /24s to 1
> /24. Remove the example about 12 /24s.
> > 4.3.2.1       Change both occurrences of /20 to /24
> > 4.9   Change /22 to /24
> > 4.9.1 Change all instances of /22 to /24. Remove the reference to 4 /24s.
> >
> >       6.      Comments:
> >               a.      Timetable for implementation: Immediate, possibly
> through board action.
> >               b.      Anything else
> >
> > END OF TEMPLATE
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:23:56 -0500
> From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> To: owens at nysernet.org,    arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough?
> Message-ID: <535FEE3C.8080801 at umn.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> If I'm not mistaken the reserved /10 for IPv6 deployment and /16 for
> micro-allocations is not included in the counter.  Could staff confirm
> please.
>
> Further, there is an additional approximately /10 that will come from
> the IANA recovered address pool.  I'm comfortable with this being
> reserved for special purposes, if we see fit.
>
> However, I'm not comfortable with reserving more out of the current free
> pool at this point.  We are well past the point where making that kind
> of change can occur without causing potentially bad side effects.  Any
> drastic change in what is available for normal allocations at this point
> is likely create a panic.
>
> We discussed this as a community, there were proposals to reserve larger
> chunks including the whole last /8 as RIPE and APNIC did.  We chose this
> strategy.  In some situations never is better than too late.
>
> My best advice is find your towel and DON'T PANIC!
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Knowing_where_one.27s_towel_is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Don.27t_Panic
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On 4/29/14, 12:54 , Bill Owens wrote:
> > A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of)
> urgency around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting aside a
> /10 under NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment -
> is really going to be enough. I was looking at Geoff Huston's graphs (
> http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/) and noticed that both RIPE and APNIC,
> by coincidence, will be using up the first /10 out of their reserved /8s at
> about the same time, near the end of this year. A naive calculation says
> that APNIC will go through the /10 in about 3.5 years, and RIPE in about
> 2.2 years. Of course it is difficult to predict how the runout of the
> reserved /10 under 4.10 will look, but I think it's reasonable to assume
> that it won't be any slower than 2-3 years, since unlike RIPE and APNIC
> there's no limit to how much space an entity can receive under 4.10, only
> the pace at which it can be handed out; assuming the maximum rate, a /22
> can be issued to someone every two years,
>   r
> >   ather than once and done as with the other two RIRs.
> >
> > Given that the inventory currently contains one /9 and one /10, we are
> getting close to the point where any additional set-asides will no longer
> be possible, so I thought it might be worthwhile at least considering
> whether the 4.10 pool ought to be enlarged while it still can be. . .
> >
> > Bill.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:28:50 +0000
> From: Skylar MacMinn <skylar at crissic.net>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>, "owens at nysernet.org"
>         <owens at nysernet.org>,   "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough?
> Message-ID:
>         <
> 35b435b0b0c1467ab538545788cad54b at DM2PR0801MB569.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'd expect the Quick jump from 1.34 to 1.00 with the Cloudflare /12 and
> the Akamai /10 to have caused enough panic as is. I'd support reserving the
> IANA recovered address pool for that, but not current available IPv4 space.
>
> Cordially Yours,
>
> Skylar MacMinn
> www.crissic.net
> Crissic Solutions, LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:24 PM
> To: owens at nysernet.org; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough?
>
> If I'm not mistaken the reserved /10 for IPv6 deployment and /16 for
> micro-allocations is not included in the counter.  Could staff confirm
> please.
>
> Further, there is an additional approximately /10 that will come from the
> IANA recovered address pool.  I'm comfortable with this being reserved for
> special purposes, if we see fit.
>
> However, I'm not comfortable with reserving more out of the current free
> pool at this point.  We are well past the point where making that kind of
> change can occur without causing potentially bad side effects.  Any drastic
> change in what is available for normal allocations at this point is likely
> create a panic.
>
> We discussed this as a community, there were proposals to reserve larger
> chunks including the whole last /8 as RIPE and APNIC did.  We chose this
> strategy.  In some situations never is better than too late.
>
> My best advice is find your towel and DON'T PANIC!
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Knowing_where_one.27s_towel_is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Don.27t_Panic
>
>
> Thanks
>
> On 4/29/14, 12:54 , Bill Owens wrote:
> > A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of)
> > urgency around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting
> > aside a /10 under NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> > Deployment - is really going to be enough. I was looking at Geoff
> > Huston's graphs (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/) and noticed that
> > both RIPE and APNIC, by coincidence, will be using up the first /10
> > out of their reserved /8s at about the same time, near the end of this
> > year. A naive calculation says that APNIC will go through the /10 in
> > about 3.5 years, and RIPE in about 2.2 years. Of course it is
> > difficult to predict how the runout of the reserved /10 under 4.10
> > will look, but I think it's reasonable to assume that it won't be any
> > slower than 2-3 years, since unlike RIPE and APNIC there's no limit to
> > how much space an entity can receive under 4.10, only the pace at
> > which it can be handed out; assuming the maximum rate, a /22 can be
> > issued to someone every two years,
>   r
> >   ather than once and done as with the other two RIRs.
> >
> > Given that the inventory currently contains one /9 and one /10, we are
> getting close to the point where any additional set-asides will no longer
> be possible, so I thought it might be worthwhile at least considering
> whether the 4.10 pool ought to be enlarged while it still can be. . .
> >
> > Bill.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:29:16 +0000
> From: Leslie Nobile <leslien at arin.net>
> To: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>, "owens at nysernet.org"
>         <owens at nysernet.org>,   "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough?
> Message-ID: <CF85677C.20316%leslien at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> To confirm, the /10 reserved for IPv6 transition and the /16 reserved for
> micro-allocations are not included in the daily IPv4 inventory counter on
> the ARIN homepage.
>
> Leslie
>
>
>
> On 4/29/14 2:23 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
> >If I'm not mistaken the reserved /10 for IPv6 deployment and /16 for
> >micro-allocations is not included in the counter.  Could staff confirm
> >please.
> >
> >Further, there is an additional approximately /10 that will come from
> >the IANA recovered address pool.  I'm comfortable with this being
> >reserved for special purposes, if we see fit.
> >
> >However, I'm not comfortable with reserving more out of the current free
> >pool at this point.  We are well past the point where making that kind
> >of change can occur without causing potentially bad side effects.  Any
> >drastic change in what is available for normal allocations at this point
> >is likely create a panic.
> >
> >We discussed this as a community, there were proposals to reserve larger
> >chunks including the whole last /8 as RIPE and APNIC did.  We chose this
> >strategy.  In some situations never is better than too late.
> >
> >My best advice is find your towel and DON'T PANIC!
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_th
> >e_Galaxy)#Knowing_where_one.27s_towel_is
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Panic_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_th
> >e_Galaxy)#Don.27t_Panic
> >
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >On 4/29/14, 12:54 , Bill Owens wrote:
> >> A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of)
> >>urgency around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting aside
> >>a /10 under NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> >>Deployment - is really going to be enough. I was looking at Geoff
> >>Huston's graphs (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/) and noticed that
> >>both RIPE and APNIC, by coincidence, will be using up the first /10 out
> >>of their reserved /8s at about the same time, near the end of this year.
> >>A naive calculation says that APNIC will go through the /10 in about 3.5
> >>years, and RIPE in about 2.2 years. Of course it is difficult to predict
> >>how the runout of the reserved /10 under 4.10 will look, but I think
> >>it's reasonable to assume that it won't be any slower than 2-3 years,
> >>since unlike RIPE and APNIC there's no limit to how much space an entity
> >>can receive under 4.10, only the pace at which it can be handed out;
> >>assuming the maximum rate, a /22 can be issued to someone every two
> >>years,
> >  r
> >>   ather than once and done as with the other two RIRs.
> >>
> >> Given that the inventory currently contains one /9 and one /10, we are
> >>getting close to the point where any additional set-asides will no
> >>longer be possible, so I thought it might be worthwhile at least
> >>considering whether the 4.10 pool ought to be enlarged while it still
> >>can be. . .
> >>
> >> Bill.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >================================================
> >David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> >Office of Information Technology
> >University of Minnesota
> >2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> >Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> >================================================
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 56
> ******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140429/142cd666/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list