[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

[Steven Ryerse]

You know I find it amazing that those big large ISPs and Cablecos who probably got very large blocks like Class A's and Class B's for free just by asking Network Solutions for them well before ARIN was formed, and who probably have large unused portions of those blocks under their control, would complain about a small org getting a measly /24 and not using it all.  

That kind of thinking is why ARIN's policies are so unfair to small Orgs.  When a small Org with no IP resources applies for a small block and get denied, they not only get shut out of resources but they get shut out of participating in this Community and voting for AC & Board posts.  The deck is stacked against us small guys and this needs to change.  My Prop 2014-18 would have been the first very small step towards changing that but of course the bigger guys who have resources and can participate in this community keep the small guys out.  My two cents!!


Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
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 Jimmy Hess
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:24 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy unfair, but ARIN’s policy of “you must 
> be THIS large a network to participate” fair?
> What is the technical basis for not allowing small networks to get PI space?

It's unfair, because non first time requestors have to hold resources, And they have to show efficient utilization of existing resources.

"All first time requestors can get a /24"   is essentially saying....

"We don't care if you waste 253  IP addresses, because your network design only required a /29."


Doesn't require a technical basis.   It is undesirable for any
networks to have PI
space,  as it grows the routing tables, but

This is a good non-technical resource management choice.  It makes sense to require small networks with no direct allocation yet to meet criteria to show that they have reached a size milestone of proven business and  growth projections with
sufficient confidence to show that  the allocation of a /24   is needed,
and absolutely necessary  to meet  short term or immediate  needs.

Consider that there are many more small networks than large ones.
There are many very small networks which might  have a proven case for
10 IP addresses and a claim to need 200  "soon".

It makes no sense that they can get a /24 for ARIN, and then stop growing, and hold onto
that entire /24 forever;    As long as the  small organization exists,
 the allocation of the /24
is an irrevocable choice,   with no incentive for the small org.  to renumber
back to PA space and release unnecessary resources.

On the other hand,  if the small  org obtains a  /24  of PA space instead,  or a  /28 of PA space,  Either less IP space will be wasted by the small network,
Or   the ISP holding the  PA block   can    reclaim addresses at a later date.

Furthermore,  for the larger networks,  there should be a small number of those, so there is less possible waste.

It would also be much better for the public for these resources to go to an ISP as PA space, where the /24 could be divided up more fairly according to actual need;  with fewer global routing table entries.

Operators already managing large PA  address space  are also more likely to have mature organizational frameworks to ensure the right internal address management practices are in place  to avoid wasting or unnecessarily utilizing scarce IPs.

To the  50000 or so  would-be  first time requestors who might like a /24; if there was no previous resource requirement....
they might very well wind up wasting  75% of their allocation  by only using 25% of the IPs.


> Decades of RIPE and APNIC policy didn’t break the internet.

Non Sequitur.
Decades of ARIN policy didn't break the internet, either.


> David
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.