[arin-ppml] Ip allocation

George Herbert george.herbert at gmail.com
Mon Apr 28 23:31:12 EDT 2014


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140428/487a71f7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list