<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">There's a difference between "number of
hosts" and "number of public IP addresses needed".<br>
I've had a number of clients in the 1k-10k IP hosts category who
only needed a handful of, portable, public IPv4 addresses;
everything else is internal use or NAT'd.<br>
The solution isn't too hard, you can artificially use up ~127 IP
addresses pretty easily, and avoid (technically) lying to ARIN,
but it's silly.<br>
But for companies that aren't willing to play games like that (and
there are quite a few, surprisingly), yeah, the "you must be THIS
tall" thing is a problem.<br>
<br>
The related issue is when connecting to an IX, you need an AS. To
get an AS, you need PI. To get PI, you need XXX utilization of an
*already-ISP-delegated non-portable* /24. So effectively, ARIN
*also* shuts out smaller companies from connecting to local IXs
like MBIX (where I'm on the board). Yes, it can be worked around,
but it's another hoop you have to jump through, and, usually in my
experience, I see companies simply lying to ARIN to get around it.<br>
<br>
(And, yes, I'm well aware of private ASNs - those are simply not
allowed at most IXPs, including MBIX.)<br>
<br>
I've been complaining about this since I realized that
multi-homing was no longer sufficient justification to get IPv4
PI, but AS USUAL most people here didn't care about the [V]SMBs.
Or maybe I didn't communicate clearly, but certainly no-one
suggested that. In fact, my comments effectively vanished into a
black hole, as expected.<br>
<br>
*I HAVE LESS THAN 61 HOSTS*. Even including VMs and hosted
customers. Even including all the subnets, I would have been fine
with a /25 and I could even have made do with a /26. (Admittedly,
I didn't know that at the time.) And I'm multi-homed, and
connected to the local IX. The ONLY reason I needed PI space was
to successfully advertise it using BGP to multiple providers over
a mix of public and private peering.<br>
<br>
And despite being the smallest of small networks, my - redundant -
routers can handle roughly 40+ copies of the full routing table
right now. So when I see companies the size of MCI, Google,
Comcast, etc. whining about router memory exhaustion? I bit the
bullet and sized my gear for multi-homed, multi-carrier IPv4+IPv6
including a hefty margin (like, 500%) for growth. Yes, I'm only
running one set of border routers, not 1000, but that - to me - is
an merely argument against the gigantic networks the US - and this
mailing list - is full of.<br>
<br>
The lower bar I'd suggest? Anything. No bar at all. Let IPv4
run out completely, and then, maybe, my local ISPs will finally
start thinking about supporting IPv6.<br>
<br>
Rather pissed off with this conversation and everyone who thinks
small networks don't exist or don't matter,<br>
-Adam Thompson<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2015-04-15 07:28 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAC4yj2Xt02cgDF5zg3X7KA9tJjiQFrnUi79qcHcffdC6pHZ6rA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:34 PM, David Huberman<span
class=""> </span><span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com" target="_blank">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>></span><span
class=""> </span>wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US">
<p class="MsoNormal">So I ask:<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy unfair,
but ARIN’s policy of “you must be THIS large a network to
participate” fair?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">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. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">(the numbers go down a bit if you have
a reason to need more subnets).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Routing table size IS a real concern,
even with current hardware. </div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">(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)</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">How much lower of a bar would you
suggest?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Striking the 61 hosts now and leaving a
promise of 123 or more in a year's time?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Would you want to lower it 29 hosts now
or 13 hosts?</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">___Jason</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:34 PM,
David Huberman <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:David.Huberman@microsoft.com"
target="_blank">David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So I ask:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy
unfair, but ARIN’s policy of “you must be THIS large
a network to participate” fair?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is the technical basis for
not allowing small networks to get PI space?
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Decades of RIPE and APNIC policy
didn’t break the internet.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>David R Huberman</b><br>
Principal, Global IP Addressing</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Microsoft Corporation</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you
experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div><span>_______________________________________________________<br>
<div>Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
-Adam Thompson
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:athompso@athompso.net">athompso@athompso.net</a>
+1 (204) 291-7950 - cell
+1 (204) 489-6515 - fax</pre>
</body>
</html>