[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Mar 11 16:57:24 EDT 2014
Different issues. Two will always be a PNI. Submit other proposals for
other issues please.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 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
> 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?
> 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-----
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:51 PM
> > To: Scott Leibrand
> > 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
> > 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.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML