|
Owen,
I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's) You have to realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks anymore. The most you can get is a class C from very few providers....most will only give out around 16 IP's. It didn't used to be this way! I can justify 1024 Ip's very easily, but I can't justify 2048 or certainly not 4096. Were I multi-homed, I could get the 1024 IP's...to me this doesn't make a lot of sense. It's far less likely for a small organization to be multi-homed, yet the policy is structured for the reverse of that? Anyway, I am just happy the minimum is being lowered.
Best regards,
On 9/3/2014 10:05 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:Derek Calanchini Owner Creative Network Solutions Phone: 916-852-2890 Fax: 916-852-2899 "Adopt the metric system!" Steven, many of your statements are patently false. First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair. Everyone is subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small organizations to obtain IP space under the existing process. I have obtained legitimate assignments for organizations as small as a sole proprietorship with no employees and have obtained allocations for extremely small ISPs.I have yet to see an organization so small that they could not obtain addresses under current policy because of their size. Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to needs testing. Further, I’m all for distributing the remaining IPv4 free pool to organizations with legitimate need as quickly as possible. I believe that the longer we have an IPv4 free pool at this point, the longer we will have to deal with the pain of this transition process and the longer people will continue to procrastinate the necessary move to IPv6. So if I truly believed that needs testing was really a vehicle to save the free pool, I would be leading the charge to eliminate needs testing. Instead, I’ve remained strongly opposed to eliminating needs basis from ARIN policy and preserved needs basis when I proposed a significant rewrite of the IPv6 allocation policy (which was adopted). I don’t believe any of Gary’s comments were at all related to organization size, so your retort to his kitchen comment seems non-sequiter. ARIN2014-18 is an irresponsible attempt to streamline the process of hoarding address space by creating multiple ORG-IDs and I cannot support it as such. ARIN2014-18 would not only affect the remaining free pool (which I doubt will be meaningful by the time any policy now being discussed could be implemented), but would also not only allow, but encourage an irresponsible fragmentation of address space for the purpose of monetary gains through specified transfers. Opposition to 2014-18 is not about discriminating against small organizations (anyone who has followed my involvement with ARIN or looks at my voting record would have a very hard time claiming I support such discrimination). While I don’t believe that the policy is intended to do what I have said above, nonetheless, the consequences described are, IMHO, the inevitable result should this policy be adopted and therefore, I oppose the policy as written. Owen On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote:
|
_______________________________________________ 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.
