[arin-ppml] Ip allocation

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 23:26:47 EDT 2014


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 <javascript:;> [mailto:
> arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of David Huberman
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:13 PM
> > To: Michael Peddemors; arin-ppml at arin.net <javascript:;>
> > 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 <javascript:;> <
> arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <javascript:;>> on behalf of Michael Peddemors
> <michael at linuxmagic.com <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:45:20 PM
> > To: arin-ppml at arin.net <javascript:;>
> > 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 <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140428/1c9e5693/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list