On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:34 AM, David Huberman < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,**** > > ** ** > > For 15 years, ARIN policy (derived from RFC2050) has promoted a dichotomy > between provider networks and enterprise networks. I submit that the > dichotomy between enterprises and providers is unbalanced, technically > unjustified, and represents poor stewardship. I believe ARIN Policy should > remove the barriers for provider networks who wish to begin numbering their > network with space from the Registry.**** > > ** ** > > Under today’s Policy framework, it is very easy to get an initial > assignment of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a multi-homed > enterprise network. Qualifying for a /24 is as simple as having a need to > use 64 IPv4 addresses right away, and projecting a need for at least 128 > IPv4 addresses within one year. This Policy is, in this writer’s opinion, > very good.**** > > ** ** > > Under today’s Policy framework, it is not very easy, however, to get an > initial allocation of IPv4 addresses from the Registry if you are a > multi-homed provider network. Qualifying for the minimum allocation size of > a /22 requires the network to already be utilizing a /23 equivalent from > other providers or peers, and be willing and able to commit to ARIN to > renumbering out of that space before being eligible for an additional > allocation.**** > > ** ** > > Normally, I would submit a Draft Policy Proposal to offer a sound policy > solution. Watching PPML over the last 10 years, however, has me shying > away from a proposal because I sense there are too many who are against any > changes to the IPv4 policy framework. I am, therefore, posting this > message in hopes of taking the temperature of the policy community. **** > > ** ** > > I think a potential policy change is relevant at such a late date because > the math clearly shows that the largest networks will be the ones who will > be first unable to receive meaningful additional IPv4 address blocks from > ARIN. The smallest of networks should be able to receive allocations and > assignments from ARIN long after the large networks have exhausted. I > think, therefore, that a fix to what I believe is an unfair policy would be > relevant for a few years going forward.**** > > ** ** > > What do you think? > I think that's right in line with what is being discussed wrt ARIN-2013-5 "LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions". Have you followed that discussion? Sounds like you may want to. Cheers, ~Chris > **** > > ** ** > > With regards,**** > > David**** > > ** ** > > **** > > *DAVID R Huberman*** > > *Senior Program Manager *** > > Microsoft GFS**** > > 425-777-0259 (w)**** > > [email protected]**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com
<<image003.jpg>>
_______________________________________________ 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.
