I like option 2 a WHOLE LOT more than option 1. I dislike intensely the idea of suggesting that people get space from people that are not providing network access services to them.
For such events, I believe a transfer should be used instead of reassignments/reallocations of PA space to non subscribers. I would also support allowing ARIN to issue down to /24 to single-homed organizations that can document their inability to get space from their upstream provider. In such a case, I would support ARIN issuing down to a /24 even if the size of the network does not justify a /24. In other words, if you need a /28 and your provider is unable to issue a /28 to you, you could go to ARIN and get a /24 with documentation of those facts. Owen On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:03 PM, Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> wrote: > During the discussion in Phoenix of Draft Policy 2013-7 (which I've since > updated and will be sending back out to PPML shortly), and in other > discussions before and since, it has become apparent that small networks may > not qualify for transfers and be unable to get space from their upstreams > after RIR and ISP IPv4 free pools run out. > > In order to address this issue, a few different ideas have come up, so I > wanted to bring some of them up to the community for discussion and see which > possible solutions might have community support. > > Here are a couple of the ideas that've come up so far: > > > 1) For smaller allocations than ARIN’s minimum, orgs “should request space > from their upstream provider _or another LIR_” (add underlined text to NRPM > 4.2.1.5). > > This would clarify that it's fine for organizations to get space reassigned > to them by any other LIR if their upstream ISPs are no longer able to provide > them the space they need. > > > 2) Lower the minimum allocation sizes to /22 single-homed and /24 multihomed > for both ISPs and end-users. This would mean updating NRPM 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 > (and would allow removal of NRPM 4.9 as redundant.) > > Before the implementation of CIDR, many /24 allocations were made to > organizations that are no longer using them. Current ARIN transfer policy > states that the minimum transfer size is a /24, but it's not clear in policy > whether an single-homed organization that needs a small block (/24 to /21) > would actually qualify to receive such a block via transfer. (Perhaps staff > input here would be useful.) In any event, reducing the minimum allocation > sizes would allow organizations of all types to receive the size of address > block they actually need, either via transfer or from ARIN's inventory of > returned space. > > Thoughts? Do you support either or both of these ideas? Would one or both > of them be worth submitting as a policy proposal? > > Thanks, > Scott > _______________________________________________ > 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.
