[arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment
hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Apr 16 01:01:05 EDT 2015
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> 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.
In the six digits plus range. I can meet the plan.
> 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
Do we have pointers to the list archive to support that? I'd be interesting
to see who proposed it, who supported it and the discussion. The AC has
archives all the way back, IIRC.
Would you want to lower it 29 hosts now or 13 hosts?
I think zero would work. What is the RIPE and other regions experience? And
multi homing is fast becoming a relic, along with policies like this.
[ Reminder, we're out of v4 ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML