[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> So, there is no
> way to decide this one based on real evidence, and it is hyperbole to even
> ask for such evidence from either side.

Agreed.

> If there are arguments for or
> against that haven't been provided, please provide them for the rest of
> community to consider.

Simply this: given the address shortage, I propose that requests to
suspend or reduce the everyday rules for minimum use of the assigned
block(s) be met with a simple test: is this something which would work
today with PA addresses and you can trivially renumber when you grow?

Web servers are hard to renumber. It takes a long time for all the
open web browsers to get the message. Mail servers are hard to
renumber. When they suddenly appear on a new address, all manner of
spam filtering issues pop up.

Two or three or even five BGP peers are NOT hard to renumber. Only the
other peers care and you can easilyuse old and new addresses
simultaneously during transition. Use a /29 from one of the
participants and pay ARIN a visit when it's full.

It's not abuse I'm worried about. Abusers will coax the documentation
to say what ARIN expects to hear. And if busted for fraud they'll get
what's coming to them. My issue is with the unrecoverable addresses
when the perfectly honest "IXP" fails to grow from two participants.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004