FWIW, Scott, your interpretation agrees with my recollection and my intents along the way.
I am not convinced that such a policy applied to the transfer market is a good idea. I believe that portable blocks place sufficient demand on internet resources that having a some number of hosts behind them (50%+) is not an unreasonable requirement regardless of whether the block is freshly minted from the RIR or recycled. Owen > On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve, > > I think your interpretation of 4.3.2.2 is incorrect. That policy section was > not the one that authorized the receipt of a (PA) /24 for multihoming. That > was, and still is, 4.2.3.6 <http://4.2.3.6/>: > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 > <https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236>, which states that "The ISP > will then verify the customer's multihoming requirement and may assign the > customer a /24, based on this policy." > > 4.3.2.2 states that the minimum allocation size (from ARIN) for multihomed > end users was a /24. However, that did not allow you to get a /24 from ARIN > just by becoming multihomed. If you were/are in that situation, you always > had to (and still have to) get your /24 from your upstream if you don't meet > ARIN's /24 utilizatinon criteria, and demonstrate efficient utilization > before getting one from ARIN. > > If my understanding does not match how policy was implemented by staff prior > to implementation of ARIN-2014-13 on 17 September 2014, someone please > correct me, but that was the intent of the policy as I understand it. > > When discussing 2014-13, my sense of the community was that we did not want > to authorize receipt of a /24 from ARIN solely based on multihoming, because > that could possibly open up a land rush of organizations spun up solely for > the purpose of getting a /24 from the free pool, holding it for the requisite > time, and then selling it on the transfer market. I personally would be more > amenable to considering a policy change to liberalize the requirements for > getting a /24 if/when they're available from the transfer market only. > > -Scott > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve King <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Multi-homing was not a requirement. It was an alternate justification. I > can’t honestly meet the 50% utilization requirement for a /24, but under the > pre-September rules I qualified for a /24 under 4.3.2.2 because I contract > with multiple carriers and want to participate in BGP for failover. > > > > Now that the language in 4.3.2.2 is gone, my reading is I have to either: > > > > a) Lie about my utilization. Not willing to do that. > > b) Beg for a BGP-transferrable block from a carrier, and even then, deal > with the fact that other ISPs are far more likely to aggregate and filter > specific routes to large carrier-assigned blocks. I end up with a less > reliable failover solution. > > > > The policy revision is a significant step backward for me. Maybe I’m enough > of an edge case to not matter. But ARIN-2014-13 stated 4.3.2.2 was redundant > given the lowered minimum allocation in 4.3.2.1. It was not redundant. It > covered a case that I think matters. > > > > The worst part is, I’m probably going to end up with two non-BGP > transferrable /24s from two carriers (we all know they hand them out like > candy with big circuits), so I’ll end up burning more IPV4 space than I > otherwise would. > > > > > > > > > > Steve King > > ICON Aircraft > > > > From: John Von Stein [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:18 PM > To: Richard J. Letts; Steve King; [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > Speaking from recent / current experience, the multi-homing requirement is a > bit of a challenge for tweener-sized organizations like QxC. We are too big > for underlying fiber carriers to comfortably continue to supply our need for > IP addresses but not in the position to carry the financial, technical or > operational challenges of multi-homing. This was a very significant cost > commitment for QxC and I can imagine this is not achievable for other > like-sized ISPs. Granted, we are better off for it now but had I known how > much of a financial and technical hurdle this really was then I probably > would not have done it. I just needed more IP addresses to continue to grow > my biz and would have much rather spent the money and manpower on > marketing/sales/customer acquisition. Multi-homing is a nice-to-have luxury > that none of my customers are willing to pay for so it is simply a cost of > entry to get the IP addresses we need to continue to grow our customer base. > > > > As such, I support dropping multi-homing as a prerequisite for an IP > allocation. > > > > Thank you, > > John W. Von Stein > > CEO > > > > <image001.jpg> > > > > 102 NE 2nd Street > > Suite 136 > > Boca Raton, FL 33432 > > Office: 561-288-6989 <tel:561-288-6989> > www.QxCcommunications.com <http://www.qxccommunications.com/> > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Richard J. Letts > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:24 PM > To: Steve King; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > I believe the intent was there. > > > > orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by > their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address > space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can’t > change providers then you certainly would not be able to multihome.. > > > > Richard Letts > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Steve King > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:47 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed? > > > > The changes implemented in ARIN-2014-13, specifically the removal of 4.3.2.2, > appear to have removed the multi-homing justification for a /24 for end > users. Previously, the need to multi-home, and proof of contracts with > multiple upstream providers, was sufficient to justify a /24 to participate > in BGP. > > > > For reassignments from ISPs, the language remains in 4.2.3.6. Users can > justify a /24 via a requirement to multi-home rather than utilization rate. > However this revision appears to leave utilization rate as the only criterion > for direct end-user assignments. > > > > Was this the intent or possibly an overlooked side effect of the change? > > > > > > > > > > Steve King > > ICON Aircraft > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
