[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

[Steven Ryerse]

Trying to pick a limit such as a /22 is arbitrary and an argument for and against that number or any other number can always be made. 

This is another attempt to somehow save IP v4 and we already know it can’t be saved. 

The market is currently balancing out the IP v4 supply and it will continue to do so if it is allowed to, until the supply dries up and the demand will switch to IP v6. 

If a policy is being abused then the policy should be improved. The board should share info on what exactly is being abused and the community can come up with a solution even if it is imperfect. 

ARINs primary role is to further the internet and it isn’t to be the Internet cop. ARIN should continue to apply the current policies and point out flaws so this community can find reasonable solutions. 

ARINs should continue to strive to perform it primary mission above all else, which is in large part how the Internet has become such a success story- imperfect though it may be.

My 2 cents. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 2, 2019, at 3:35 PM, "hostmaster at uneedus.com" <hostmaster at uneedus.com> wrote:
> 
> Many hosting and access providers like to give each paying customer their own IPv4 address, since it simplifies DMCA compliance.  Otherwise the hosting provider needs to get into the middle of keeping logs for every customer.  Even though SNI allows more than one https site per IP, it does not create a division for DMCA purposes.  Often in actual fact, each "Customer" has further divided his/her hosting space to host for multiple websites, sometimes belonging to other people than the ones paying the bill to the hosting provider. This includes each customer using SNI to determine the identity of the many websites that each customer is hosting themselves.
> 
> /22 in the proposal is a maximum. They would still have to show how they intend to use the space in accordance with 4.2.2 if they want more than a /24.
> 
> I say lets try the /22, and if needed reduce it.  Remember 4.2.1.5 sets the minimum at /24, so setting it at /24 is a one size fits all policy.
> 
> As for NAT and even web hosting, the 64k port limitation is also an issue as pointed out by others.  While hosting many sites on a single IPv4 address can be done, it may not be considered rational when considering compliance with many laws that are required, including the DMCA.  This is one of the factors that speak against the use of CGNAT for internet access customers, unless the customers are divided by port address ranges or like means.  Otherwise the ISP has to get into the logging business, which can also turn into a big cost center.
> 
> Albert Erdmann
> Network Administrator
> Paradise On Line Inc.
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.1903021333190.3734 at localhost.localdomain>,
>> hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Our choices with this Draft Policy:
>>> 
>>> 1) Reject it because it does not completely eliminate the abuse, and allow
>>> the current policy (with ALL its abuse) to continue.
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> 2) Adopt the policy even though not perfect at eliminating ALL the abuse,
>>> but does cut back much of it.
>> 
>> Please allow me to note that there is also a third option:
>> 
>> 
>> 3) Adopt the policy, but select some different default allocation size,
>> other than /22.
>> 
>> Personally, I think that a /22 is the Wrong Way To Go and it would be better
>> to change that to a single /24.
>> 
>> I mean what do people even need lots of IPv4 for anymore anyway?  A single
>> web server with a single IPv4 address can easily support tens of thousands
>> of distinct and unique web sites.  A single mail server on a single IPv4
>> address can likewise support mail services for tens of thousands of
>> recipient and sender domain names.  A single name server on a single IPv4
>> address can also provide DNS service for tens of thusands of domain names.
>> For anyone needing to support big batches of end-luser clients, there is
>> IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> rfg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-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:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.