Agreed.
On 04/15/2015 12:00 PM, David Huberman wrote:
Jimmy,
Thank you for the well thought out counter argument. I agree with a lot of
what you say. You've outlined what I think is the primary thinking behind
conservation-based allocation practices that ARIN policy has been based on for
18 years now.
The problem I think I have is the results of those practices.
1) Lock-in by large providers
2) Conservation itself is a red herring, and has been for more than a decade.
80-90% of the addresses go to 10 companies. That leaves tens of thousands of
networks using just 10-20% of the addresses. This math has been shown many
times on PPML in the past.
Routing table growth is no longer mathematically valid, in my opinion. We are
just under 600,000 routes. There are only 40,000 ASes or so (right?) in a
typical DFZ. Even a doubling of that would have no discernable effect on
routing. If youre running a catalyst 5xxx, it's time to upgrade.
Finally, I respect the RIPE and APNIC model of addressing: everyone plays on a level
field to start with. You get a block, and try and grow your business/network. At ARIN,
this "you must be THIS tall" inherently favors the large ISPs and cablecos who
dominate ARIN policy making (and have since the beginning), which results in lock-in, etc
etc.
Just my opinion. My original post was made in frustration when large ISPs got
to the mic at ARIN35 decrying that removing needs-basis for small transfers was
unfair. Such hypocrisy (especially from those who already bought a /8!!!) is a
sore topic for me. I will continue to fight for the little guy, borne of my 10
years working with them every day at ARIN. The big guys don't need the help.
Thanks for listening,
David
David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation
-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:24 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: ARIN PPML ([email protected])
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assignment
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM, David Huberman
<[email protected]> wrote:
How is RIPE and APNIC’s policy unfair, but ARIN’s policy of “you must
be THIS large a network to participate” fair?
What is the technical basis for not allowing small networks to get PI space?
It's unfair, because non first time requestors have to hold resources, And
they have to show efficient utilization of existing resources.
"All first time requestors can get a /24" is essentially saying....
"We don't care if you waste 253 IP addresses, because your network design
only required a /29."
Doesn't require a technical basis. It is undesirable for any
networks to have PI
space, as it grows the routing tables, but
This is a good non-technical resource management choice. It makes sense to
require small networks with no direct allocation yet to meet criteria to show
that they have reached a size milestone of proven business and growth
projections with
sufficient confidence to show that the allocation of a /24 is needed,
and absolutely necessary to meet short term or immediate needs.
Consider that there are many more small networks than large ones.
There are many very small networks which might have a proven case for
10 IP addresses and a claim to need 200 "soon".
It makes no sense that they can get a /24 for ARIN, and then stop growing,
and hold onto
that entire /24 forever; As long as the small organization exists,
the allocation of the /24
is an irrevocable choice, with no incentive for the small org. to renumber
back to PA space and release unnecessary resources.
On the other hand, if the small org obtains a /24 of PA space instead, or a
/28 of PA space, Either less IP space will be wasted by the small network,
Or the ISP holding the PA block can reclaim addresses at a later date.
Furthermore, for the larger networks, there should be a small number of
those, so there is less possible waste.
It would also be much better for the public for these resources to go to an
ISP as PA space, where the /24 could be divided up more fairly according to
actual need; with fewer global routing table entries.
Operators already managing large PA address space are also more likely to
have mature organizational frameworks to ensure the right internal address
management practices are in place to avoid wasting or unnecessarily utilizing
scarce IPs.
To the 50000 or so would-be first time requestors who might like a /24; if
there was no previous resource requirement....
they might very well wind up wasting 75% of their allocation by only using
25% of the IPs.
Decades of RIPE and APNIC policy didn’t break the internet.
Non Sequitur.
Decades of ARIN policy didn't break the internet, either.
David
--
-JH
_______________________________________________
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.
