Hello Bill, Here is my understanding of the factors I took into consideration regarding the minimum settings.
* AFRINIC and LACNIC currently have a /22 minimum with no SH/MH distinction. * RIPE NCC has a /22 minimum, which also happens to be their maximum as they are in their last /8 policy phase. As I understand it, a /21 minimum would apply to a transfer. * APNIC has a /24 minimum with a /22 maximum as part of their depletion phase policies. The /24 minimum would apply to transfers without a SH/MH distinction. * Existing aggregated blocks can already be broken down to /24's through the Inter-RIR transfer policy regardless of whether they are SH or MH. * The impact in the ARIN region would be the number of single-homed organizations who could qualify for a /22, but cannot qualify for a /20, and are willing to add the additional financial obligation of being an ARIN Org and possibly having to pay for a transfer. The question that comes to mind is whether this change would have a scalable impact on the existing, estimated, 450K routes already in the table? My sense is that it would not which is how I got to the draft language. Sincerely, Dan Alexander Speaking only for myself On 7/22/13 1:39 PM, "William Herrin" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Alexander, Daniel ><[email protected]> wrote: >> * Minimum allocation for a single-homed ISP is reduced from a /20 to >>/22. >> * Minimum assignments for a single-homed end user is reduced from a /20 >>to >> a /22. > >Hi Daniel, > >I strongly disagree with these two proposed changes. There is no >technical penalty for allowing multihomed registrants to get their >addresses directly from ARIN: their routes will be present in the BGP >table regardless of where they get the addresses. This is not true of >single-homed end users who would generally not have a presence in the >BGP table unless they get their addresses from the RIR. > >As we've discussed principles in recent weeks, we have broad agreement >that it's ARIN's job to make scalable routing possible. Right now, >that means having single-homed users get their numbers from their >upstream. The changes would run counter without apparent gain in one >of the other areas discussed as candidate principles. > >Regards, >Bill Herrin > > >-- >William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] >3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> >Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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.
