[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised

[Andrew Dul]

For those who are concerned about making sure these types of blocks are
available in the future, there are two other avenues which could be
explored beyond what is proposed in this policy.

1. Increase the size of reserved block which ARIN is holding for
micro-allocations.

2. Remove the /24 minimum for IXP allocations.  Since there is no
technical reason to have an IXP block be a /24 and the operational best
practice is to not route these blocks we could look at "right sizing"
IXP blocks rather giving a very small IXPs a rather large block for what
they need.  Yes, this brings up the possible renumbering issue in the
future, but a /25 or /26 still allows quite a number of IXP participants. 

Do operators have any thoughts on these ideas?

Thanks,
Andrew

On 3/10/2014 12:56 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> I agree there is no downside keeping it as it is.  We ought to be making it easier not harder wherever we can.  I'm against changing it as well.  
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
> 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 Brandon Ross
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:51 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
>> Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and 
>> renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?
> Yes, renumbering is hard.  Renumbering is even harder for rural entities that don't have tons of high end network engineers around.  It's hard enough for rural service providers to pool enough funds to buy a switch and stand up an IX, discouraging them from building additional interconnectivity by making it difficult to get IP addresses is disappointing.
>
> On the other hand, there is absolutely no downside to keeping the requirement the way it is.  Changing it does nothing for conservation of
> IPv4 addresses at all, as any dishonest players won't have a harder time at all faking 3 entities as compared to 2.
>