Sure, but sending it in without prior discussion will result in another bride of Frankenstein.
One way to do this in a simple and parse-able way could be to change the minimum allocation unit in 4.2.1.5 from the reference to a /22 to a /24. Best, -M< On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 PM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Martin, can you file that as a (better, quicker) policy proposal then? > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> > Behalf Of David Huberman >>> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:13 PM >>> > To: Michael Peddemors; [email protected] >>> > 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] <[email protected]> on behalf >>> > of Michael Peddemors <[email protected]> >>> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:45:20 PM >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > 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]). >>> 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. > > > > > -- > -george william herbert > [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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.
