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

Martin Hannigan 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.

Best,
Martin


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
> 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 <javascript:;> [mailto:
> arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of Brandon Ross
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 3:51 PM
> > To: Scott Leibrand
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net <javascript:;>
> > 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.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <javascript:;>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net <javascript:;> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140311/b4fe176a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list