Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Justifying an ISP /22 (Scott Leibrand)
2. Re: Justifying an ISP /22 (Randy Carpenter)
3. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (John Curran)
4. Re: Justifying an ISP /22 (Serge Paquin)
5. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (William Herrin)
6. Re: IPv6 as justification for IPv4? (John Curran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:44:14 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: Serge Paquin <[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List
<[email protected]>
Subject: [arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
(Moving this over to a new thread on PPML to discuss the policy aspects...)
Serge,
Do you have any other ideas for how to justify that an ISP really needs a /22
from the free pool, that would be easier than getting PA, using it, and then
remembering?
Or, let's say you could get a /22 from the transfer market with minimal
justification (just that you're an actual network operator, say). Would it have
been worth your while to pay market price for the addresses and avoid the
application and renumbering hassles?
Scott
On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Serge Paquin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The fee
> was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial /22
> allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP and in
> production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove need.
>
> Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now
> production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated space.
>
> We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional
> costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to
> renumber.
>
> It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company
> having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted the
> cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees.
>
> I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no
> issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before they
> could issue us a direct allocation of course.
>
> Serge.
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:05:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randy Carpenter <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I think the criteria should be:
1. Be an ISP with *any* amount of space from an upstream
2. Be able to justify a 3-month need for a /22
3. Have upstream ISPs that refuse to hand out any more PA space (which appears
to be the rule rather than the exception now) (I'm not sure how one would go
about proving this, but I have seen situations where the upstream would likely
write a letter of support)
4. Be forced to take an automatic IPv6 allocation (at whatever NRPM-supported
size is appropriate (preferably /32 min.))
I also think this should be expanded to being able to get a larger initial
allocation if you can justify the need.
e.g. if an ISP has a /20 from an upstream, but has a justified need for a /18,
they should be able to jump right to the /18 without having to get the /20
first. This would reduce the amount of work needed.
thanks,
-Randy
----- Original Message -----
> (Moving this over to a new thread on PPML to discuss the policy aspects...)
>
> Serge,
>
> Do you have any other ideas for how to justify that an ISP really needs a /22
> from the free pool, that would be easier than getting PA, using it, and then
> remembering?
>
> Or, let's say you could get a /22 from the transfer market with minimal
> justification (just that you're an actual network operator, say). Would it
> have been worth your while to pay market price for the addresses and avoid
> the application and renumbering hassles?
>
> Scott
>
> On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Serge Paquin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The
> > fee was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial
> > /22 allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP
> > and in production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove
> > need.
> >
> > Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now
> > production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated
> > space.
> >
> > We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional
> > costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to
> > renumber.
> >
> > It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company
> > having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted
> > the cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees.
> >
> > I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no
> > issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before
> > they could issue us a direct allocation of course.
> >
> > Serge.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:09:17 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Apr 15, 2013, at 5:00 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>
>> If he can't qualify for space from ARIN, how is he going to qualify to
>> receive space via transfer? The requirements are the same (with the
>> exception of 3-month vs. 24-month need, which isn't the limiting factor
>> here). And the minimum allocation size for ISPs is /22 per NRPM 4.2.2.2:
>> only end-users can get /24's from ARIN (or via transfer), under NRPM
>> 4.3.2.2.
>
> Hi John,
>
> Can you comment on this? Are ISPs able to receive /24 and /23 blocks
> via NRPM 8.3 transfers?
Bill -
The ISP must demonstrate the need for IPv4 address resources under
ARIN standard allocation policies (i.e. a single-homed ISP showing
need for a /20 or multi-homed ISP showing need for a /22) in order
to qualify to receive resources via transfer. Once qualified, we
can approve the transfer of IPv4 space; this can be to a maximum
of their documented need based on their current utilization rate
extended 24 months out, and down to a minimum of a single /24 (as
/24 is the explicit minimum transfer size specified in NRPM 8.3)
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:33:37 +0000
From: "Serge Paquin" <[email protected]>
To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>, ARIN-PPML List
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Justifying an ISP /22
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Scott,
To be honest I hadn't thought of it. Since before being an ARIN member I was
not familiar at all with the policy creation process. Once an ARIN member I've
stayed on the discuss list to try and get familiar, but hadn't really thought
about the process until the current thread.
As for the transfer market to be honest I don't know what the market price is.
Doing a quick search it seems to be $10 to $20 per IP so no I don't think I
would want to drop $22k on IP space as a small startup. Heck that's more than
the biggest ISP's in the world pay for all their IP space. That is not a long
term investment (in theory) as IPv6 adoption grows.
My first thought would be having a /24 allocation min rather than /22, but
issuing on /22 boundaries so as a member grew you could issue them the adjacent
space while not increasing the BGP table size.
Once confirming their legal entity as well as the Upstream ASN they will BGP
Peer with a /24 should be relatively straight forward to get.
I realize that there are likely other factors which I'm not aware of which
could make my suggestion problematic.
The issue with the current system is that at the start your destiny is strongly
tied to the whim of your upstream and how much IP space they will give you and
what they will potentially charge for it. As well you have to plan from the
start on an IP renumbering for your installed client base which is disruptive
internally and to your customers.
The barrier to entry for new companies I don't believe should be so high. It
seems to be a system to discourage ARIN membership and have small ISP's /
Datacenters get their IP space directly from their upstream ISP which
potentially reduces redundancy (Multi-homing) as well locks the company into a
single upstream which can then dictate price since they own the IP space.
Serge.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:44 PM
To: Serge Paquin; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Justifying an ISP /22
(Moving this over to a new thread on PPML to discuss the policy aspects...)
Serge,
Do you have any other ideas for how to justify that an ISP really needs a /22
from the free pool, that would be easier than getting PA, using it, and then
remembering?
Or, let's say you could get a /22 from the transfer market with minimal
justification (just that you're an actual network operator, say). Would it have
been worth your while to pay market price for the addresses and avoid the
application and renumbering hassles?
Scott
On Apr 16, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "Serge Paquin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> As for the Barrier to Entry; I don't believe it is the fees so much (The fee
> was not our issue at all) as the very hard time to justify the initial /22
> allocation. Until you already have space swiped to you from your ISP and in
> production you can't get a direct assignment since you can't prove need.
>
> Then when you get your allocation you have a timeframe to renumber your now
> production clients into the new space and hand back your ISP allocated space.
>
> We did this a couple years ago and it was a major undertaking in additional
> costs of staff, tech support and scheduling to work with each client to
> renumber.
>
> It was a business decision that we'd be a more stable and healthy company
> having our own IP space and set forth with that goal in mind and accepted the
> cost but it was a lot more than the ARIN fees.
>
> I do have to say that the ARIN support staff were helpful and we had no
> issues dealing with them. We just had to meet all the criteria before they
> could issue us a direct allocation of course.
>
> Serge.
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:08:14 -0400
From: William Herrin <[email protected]>
To: John Curran <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<cap-gugvd9xgt02t04w7r+xw8dqats88_nbaboh8neq_bv2-...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> The ISP must demonstrate the need for IPv4 address resources under
> ARIN standard allocation policies (i.e. a single-homed ISP showing
> need for a /20 or multi-homed ISP showing need for a /22) in order
> to qualify to receive resources via transfer. Once qualified, we
> can approve the transfer of IPv4 space; this can be to a maximum
> of their documented need based on their current utilization rate
> extended 24 months out, and down to a minimum of a single /24 (as
> /24 is the explicit minimum transfer size specified in NRPM 8.3)
Thanks John.
So, what would folks think of a policy adjustment along these lines:
"Add to: 8.3 Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
* Minimum address block size qualifications defined in section 4 do
not apply to transfers to specified recipients."
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:06:55 +0000
From: John Curran <[email protected]>
To: William Herrin <[email protected]>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Apr 16, 2013, at 10:08 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The ISP must demonstrate the need for IPv4 address resources under
>> ARIN standard allocation policies (i.e. a single-homed ISP showing
>> need for a /20 or multi-homed ISP showing need for a /22) in order
>> to qualify to receive resources via transfer. Once qualified, we
>> can approve the transfer of IPv4 space; this can be to a maximum
>> of their documented need based on their current utilization rate
>> extended 24 months out, and down to a minimum of a single /24 (as
>> /24 is the explicit minimum transfer size specified in NRPM 8.3)
>
> Thanks John.
>
> So, what would folks think of a policy adjustment along these lines:
>
> "Add to: 8.3 Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
>
> * Minimum address block size qualifications defined in section 4 do
> not apply to transfers to specified recipients."
Bill -
You are suggesting a policy change, but I'm unsure what you are
trying to accomplish in terms of a goal (and hence the text you
suggest may not be the most logical place to accomplish it.)
The anchor in NRPM 8.3 is the following text: "The recipient must
demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month supply of IP address
resources under current ARIN policies and sign an RSA."
I would generally recommend against putting a reference requiring
compliance to "need... under current ARIN policies" and then cutting
particular pieces of those policies out in subsequent statements
Note - we'll implement whatever is adopted, but doing so as you
suggest has a high risk of multiple interpretations and/or member
confusion when the try to decode the result.
If the intent is that their maximum transfer brings their total IPv4
holdings which meets their anticipated needs for IPv4 address space
for 24 months, then you might want to drop the current reference to
the allocation policy and simply state the intended maximum in plain
language.
I do not know if I've addressed your question, and will note that
the elected ARIN AC excels at doing this sort of language (if you
want to submit a problem statement to the ARIN AC and work with
them on it...)
I hope this helps answer your question!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 94, Issue 36
*****************************************
