I want my own IPs

Mon Nov 15 07:31:19 UTC 2004

While that is what was voted on at the public policy meeting, the BOD and
the AC have the ability to do some modifications as long as the preserve
the intent of the consensus obtained from the meeting and the PPML
discussions.  They are allowed to incorporate feedback from the last call,
for example.  What section 4.2.2.2 has is what was adopted by the ARIN BOD
after positive recommendation from the AC.  That is how the policy process
worked at the time.  I believe the new policy process works much the same
way for that portion.

Owen

--On Sunday, November 14, 2004 9:01 PM -0500 Marshall Eubanks 
<tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> Hello Owen;
>
> The original intent was to make it possible for multi-homed ASN to get a
> minimum address block (a /24), without any other particular
> qualifications. There was considerable debate, as you would expect on a
> proposal that took 3 Public Policy Meetings  and 14 months to get
> through. As approved, it says merely :
>
> ------
> Address Policy for Multi-homed Networks
>
> Multi-homed organizations may justify and obtain a block of address space
> with prefix length extending to /22 directly from ARIN. When prefixes are
> longer than /20, these micro-allocations or micro-assignments will be
> from a reserved block for that purpose. ------
>
> Regardless of Section 4.2.2.2 may say, the above is what was voted on at
> the Chicago meeting. Given the original intent of 2002-3, and given the
> wording of it as passed, I view multi-homing as a strong justification
> for a /22. Clearly, if you get an make use of two /24 from your
> upstreams, you should qualify. If not, it may take more convincing, but
> it should not be ruled out.
>
> What comes to mind, though, is is this a tempest in a tea pot ? Has
> anyone gotten a  microassignment ? What is their experience ? Please send
> any info to me offlist.  (One of the points that we kept making about
> 2002-3 was that not many people would use it in practice.)
>
> Regards
> Marshall Eubanks
>
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:11:55 -0800
>  Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Actually, that's not true.  The requirement for a direct end-user
>> assignment of any size includes multihoming.  Since RFC-compliant
>> multihoming requires an ASN (consistent origin AS), one of the metrics
>> used to determine if an organization is multihomed is the possession of
>> (or application for) an ASN. This applies to any prefix size.
>> Initially, there were going to be separate more stringent rules for
>> obtaining a /24 microallocation, but, in the process of watering 2002-3
>> down to a /22, most of these additional requirements were also removed.
>> The resulting policy is, in fact,  essentially
>> identical to the current policy except for the minimum allocation unit,
>> and, the specification that /22 and /21 assignments and allocations will
>> be taken from a different address pool than the larger ones.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> --On Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:38 AM -0500 Marshall Eubanks
>> <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:57:46 -0700
>> >  Michael Loftis <mloftis at wgops.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > The original intent of 2002-3 : Micro-Assignments for Multihomed
>> > Networks was to give a /24 to any party with an ASN, as it was
>> > possible to become an AS without having the ability to get your own
>> > address space. In the year+ before it was approved last Fall
>> > in Chicago, this was watered down to a /22. (FWIW, I opposed that.)
>> >
>> > However, to become an AS means that you have to be multi homed, i.e.,
>> > have a connection to 2 or more providers. Since it is not hard to get
>> > a /24 from a provider if you are paying for a connection with them,
>> > then my understanding of the intent was that any ASN with two /24's
>> > should be able to get a /22. (I.e., for the microassignment, having an
>> > ASN was the crucial factor.) This is not the same as requesting an
>> > assignment for a /20 or smaller prefix, where different rules apply.
>> >
>> > If you are an ASN with two address blocks, I think that you qualify and
>> > should apply.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Marshall Eubanks
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --On Friday, November 12, 2004 14:14 -0500 Alex Kamantauskas
>> >> <alexk at tugger.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Yep, I blinked while going through the small town of ARIN Policy and
>> >> > missed it :)
>> >> >
>> >> > ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, 4.2.2.2: "When requesting a /22,
>> >> > demonstrate the efficient utilization of a minimum contiguous or
>> >> > noncontiguous /23 (two /24s) from an upstream."
>> >>
>> >> I'm still not exactly clear on the definition of 'efficient
>> >> utilization' --- in other places it' mentions 80%, but that's only as
>> >> ISP allocation and  request for additional space...
>> >>
>> >> Anyone have a pointer as to the ARIN official definition of this
>> >> language?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
>

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041114/38a7d8a5/attachment.sig>