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] <javascript:;> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of David Huberman > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:13 PM > > To: Michael Peddemors; [email protected] <javascript:;> > > 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] <javascript:;> < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> on behalf of Michael Peddemors > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:45:20 PM > > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > 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] <javascript:;>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] <javascript:;> 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.
