In general, I agree with your point. Perhaps “Customer must originate prefix(es) and announce them via a border routing protocol (e.g. BGP-4) to each of their upstreams."
In specific, I think it’s extremely unlikely that there will be any significant advances or changes in IPv4 routing protocols as the IETF has pretty thoroughly expressed a desire to stop working on IPv4 except in furtherance of transition to IPv6. Owen > On Jul 16, 2020, at 11:06 , John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7/16/2020 11:39 AM, Kat Hunter wrote: > [...] >> 4.2.3.6 Original Text: >> Under normal circumstances an ISP is required to determine the prefix size >> of their reassignment to a downstream customer according to the guidelines >> set forth in RFC 2050. Specifically, a downstream customer justifies their >> reassignment by demonstrating they have an immediate requirement for 25% of >> the IP addresses being assigned, and that they have a plan to utilize 50% of >> their assignment within one year of its receipt. This policy allows a >> downstream customer’s multihoming requirement to serve as justification for >> a /24 reassignment from their upstream ISP, regardless of host requirements. >> Downstream customers must provide contact information for all of their >> upstream providers to the ISP from whom they are requesting a /24. The ISP >> will then verify the customer’s multihoming requirement and may assign the >> customer a /24, based on this policy. Customers may receive a /24 from only >> one of their upstream providers under this policy without providing >> additional justification. ISPs may demonstrate they have made an assignment >> to a downstream customer under this policy by supplying ARIN with the >> information they collected from the customer, as described above, or by >> identifying the AS number of the customer. This information may be requested >> by ARIN staff when reviewing an ISP’s utilization during their request for >> additional IP addresses space. >> > New version of proposed 4.2.3.6 replacement: > >> 4.3.2.6 New Text, replacing old: >> If a downstream customer has a requirement to multihome, that requirement >> alone will serve as justification for a /24 allocation. Downstream customers >> must provide contact information for all of their upstream providers to the >> ISP from whom they are requesting a /24, and utilize BGP as the routing >> protocol between the customer and the ISP. Customers may receive a /24 from >> only one of their upstream providers under this policy without providing >> additional justification. ISPs may demonstrate they have made an assignment >> to a downstream customer under this policy by supplying ARIN with the >> information they collected from the customer, as described above, or by >> identifying the AS number of the customer. >> >> -Kat Hunter >> [...] > Older version of proposed 4.2.3.6: >> >> 4.2.3.6. Reassignments to Multihomed Downstream Customers >> >> If a downstream customer has a requirement to multihome, that >> requirement alone will serve as justification for a /24 allocation. >> Downstream customers must provide contact information for all of their >> upstream providers to the ISP from whom they are requesting a /24, and >> utilize BGP as the routing protocol between the customer and the ISP. >> Customers may receive a /24 from only one of their upstream providers >> under this policy without providing additional justification. ISPs may >> demonstrate they have made an assignment to a downstream customer under >> this policy by supplying ARIN with the information they collected from >> the customer, as described above, or by identifying the AS number of the >> customer. >> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate > I haven't digested this proposal sufficiently to have an opinion one way or > the other, but I do have a general and a specific question. Doesn't ARIN > attempt to avoid mandating particular network technologies in policy, so as > not to impede technological advances? > > I am particularly referring to BGP in both versions of the proposed new > policy. Would it be better to develop wording that would suggest BGP until > something better comes along, by not specifically refer to it in the policy > text? Or is BGP considered to be as good as it's ever going to get, at least > for IPv4 routing? > > > > -- > John Santos > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539 > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-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: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
