Martin, can you file that as a (better, quicker) policy proposal then?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The original topic of this thread requires anequivalent "one word" > change. /20 to N in one place in the NRPM. > > That has support. 207 will hopefully receive "vigorous" opposition. > > Emergencies should demand simple non controversial changes. This isn't it. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Monday, April 28, 2014, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Andrew and Derek, >> >> I attended ARIN33 and met with Andrew Dul and three other members of the >> AC to discuss the need for IPv4 numbers for new entrants following ARIN >> runout. As a result of this issue, we have collaborated to create a >> draft policy >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_207_orig.html >> >> to solve the problem as indicated by Andrew Dul. This policy will solve >> three problems that I can see: >> >> 1) sets up a pool of IP's, size /10, for new entrants, once ARIN runs >> out. My interpretation is that, now that >> ARIN is down to a /8, this leaves 4 /10's. ARIN will chew through 3 >> /10's and when it hits the 4th, this /10 will >> be used for new entrants and companies like Derek's to get additional >> IP's; >> >> 2) it sets the obtainable block size at a minimum of a /28, with a >> maximum of a /22, for an entity; >> >> 3) it is a one time allocation; once a company makes a claim for >> resources under this policy, it cannot make a second claim. >> >> I commend Andrew Dul for his speed, accuracy, and effectiveness in >> getting this draft out. Great job! Although the policy is not perfect >> in terms of content, (I would normally be opposed to the needs >> language), it is an emergency situation, and an excellent compromise >> that meets most requirements of progressive internet thinkers. >> >> I support this policy and encourage immediate adoption. >> >> Best Regards, >> Sandra Brown >> IPv4 Market Group >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> A proposal has been submitted into the PDP process based upon feedback >> and breakout discussions that occurred at the last meeting. I believe >> this proposal may help with the issue which started this thread. >> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_207_orig.html >> >> There is also another group of folks working on a proposal to update >> section 4.2.2 based upon feedback received at the meeting and the policy >> experience report >> ( >> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_33/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf >> ) >> presented at the meeting. I suspect we will also have another proposal >> submitted to the policy development process shortly. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> On 4/28/2014 5:16 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: >> > I agree it is past time to do this as it is ARIN's reason to exist to >> allocate. >> > >> > >> > Steven Ryerse >> > President >> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 >> > www.eclipse-networks.com >> > 770.656.1460 - Cell >> > 770.399.9099- Office >> > >> > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. >> > Conquering Complex Networks? >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of David Huberman >> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:13 PM >> > To: Michael Peddemors; [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ip allocation >> > >> > Full support. Making a single ISP initial allocation criteria that >> opens a /22 (or more!) to all first timers would be about 10 years past >> due, but still helpful to the community ARIN serves. >> > >> > David R Huberman >> > Microsoft Corporation >> > Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS) >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:45:20 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Ip allocation >> > >> > Actually, this is timely, and you probably started at the right place, >> what would be needed though is for someone to write up a draft resolution >> to this affect, to change current policies. >> > >> > I was just talking to several parties regarding the same issue, and >> while there might have been justification in the past, when routing issues >> were a greater concern than running out of IPv4 space, but given the >> current situation, maybe it is time to rethink this policy. >> > >> > In the mean time, you are faced in getting two upstream providers to >> route to your prospective /22. I know, it doesn't make too much sense that >> the small guy should bear the burden of extra costs etc.. for being honest >> about his projected requirements.. >> > >> > Any other support out there for policy changes in this area? >> > >> > On 14-04-28 04:33 PM, Derek Calanchini wrote: >> >> Hello all, I will be brief as possible. I need assistance with either >> >> requesting a policy change or an appeal/exception to current policy. >> >> >> >> I started business in 1995 with 4 Class C's assigned from Integra ( >> >> /22 ). I am a full service IT provider offering pretty much >> >> everything but connectivity. Over the years I have developed my >> >> network such that I am using my IP's very efficiently. Host headers >> >> on most web sites, internal IP's whenever possible, and of course >> >> certain thing must be static, single IP's on a host. >> >> >> >> I am moving in less then a year to a new office, and taking the >> >> opportunity to get on the ATT fiber backbone rather then 4 bonded >> >> T-1's from Integra (which is very expensive) Integra tells me I can >> >> not take my IP's with me, and ATT tells me the largest block they will >> >> give me is a single class C. >> >> >> >> So I went out to Arin and setup my account and requested a /22 which >> >> was denied because the smallest block they will give a single homed >> >> ISP is a >> >> /20 (4096 ip's) >> >> >> >> I feel like I am being penalized for using my IP's efficiently!! As I >> >> see it, I only have one option: Rework my network so every site I >> >> host uses it's own dedicated IP so that I can justify needing a >> >> /20...in which case I feel I would be doing the internet community a >> disservice. >> >> >> >> Can anyone provided feedback on how to better resolve this? How do I >> >> start getting the policy changed? Is there a process I can go through >> >> to get an exemption? Would excalation my request be of any use? >> >> >> >> With the IP 4 space dwindling, wouldn't it be a better policy to allow >> >> small business to get only what they need? >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Derek Calanchini >> >> Owner >> >> Creative Network Solutions >> >> ______________________________________________________________________________ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- -george william herbert [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.
