[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised
bill at herrin.us
Tue Mar 11 17:01:18 EDT 2014
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand
> <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 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?
>> Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden, support changing 2 to 3.
I agree with Scott. I can still get a /28 on a consumer DSL line for
$25/mo and routers renumber easily. There is no burden here.
> Would you entertain more than 3?
I would entertain up to 5, allowing a comfortable fit in a /29 before
requesting ARIN space. Beyond that the logistical problems become
noticeable enough to merit a direct assignment. Not so severe as to
require it, but noticeable.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> 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.
I would agree to a /26 minimum assignment for IXPs, but I note that
doing so complicates the critical infrastructure policy. There are
other critical infrastructure uses for which the ISP-enforced /24
boundary is an issue.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML