[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised
SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
Mon Mar 10 15:56:50 EDT 2014
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.
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
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.
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Skype: brandonross Schedule a meeting: http://www.doodle.com/bross _______________________________________________
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML