[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Wed Apr 15 20:28:29 EDT 2015


On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:34 PM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

> So I ask:
>
> How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy unfair, but ARIN’s policy of “you must be
> THIS large a network to participate” fair?
>
>
>

When you say "you must be THIS large a network to participate" you are
talking about networks that are smaller than 61 hosts (plus a router,
network address and broadcast address), and also don't have a plan to have
a total of 123 hosts in one year.

(the numbers go down a bit if you have a reason to need more subnets).

I ask for all posters that reference this policy being unfair to small
networks, to disclose if they have less than 61 hosts, or cannot meet a
plan for 123 hosts.

This bar was intended to prevent anyone who wanted their own address space
from getting it and routing it, and contributing to the global routing
table.

Routing table size IS a real concern, even with current hardware.

(and it is not just 572K IPv4 routes and the 24K IPv6 which cost between
1.9 and 2.2 times as much space, but also all of the internal routes that
large networks are nice enough to aggregate for everyone, and the number of
routes as a function of your architecture and peering locations)

How much lower of a bar would you suggest?

Striking the 61 hosts now and leaving a promise of 123 or more in a year's
time?

Would you want to lower it 29 hosts now or 13 hosts?


___Jason

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:34 PM, David Huberman <
David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:

>  RIPE and APNIC policy HAVE ALWAYS ALLOWED all first-time requestors to
> be an LIR and get address space directly from the registry.  In fact, for
> more than a decade, that size was defaulted to a /20.  It is smaller now (a
> /22 I believe).   Then to get more space, you show you efficiently utilized
> what you have.
>
>
>
> At the mics at ARIN 35 just today, the large ISPs and Cablecos got up to
> the mic and said a policy which allows small networks to get a /24 just by
> asking for it is unfair.
>
>
>
> So I ask:
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Decades of RIPE and APNIC policy didn’t break the internet.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *David R Huberman*
> Principal, Global IP Addressing
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150415/264b6c86/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list