[131059] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leslie Nobile)
Tue Oct 19 22:00:15 2010
From: Leslie Nobile <leslien@arin.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:59:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4DCA91E5-52FB-44B0-BD6E-801270AE4C6C@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Quick FYI - ARIN has a documented appeals process that an organization can
use if they believe that ARIN staff did not follow community-established
policies in the review of their resource request. Here is the link:
https://www.arin.net/resources/resource_requests/appeal_process.html
Regards,
Leslie
Leslie Nobile
Director, Registration Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 10/19/10 2:21 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>=20
>> On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>=20
>>> No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking=
for
>>> larger.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> ME: I really need larger space
>> ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give large=
r
>> than /32
>>=20
> Did you send them a customer count exceeding about 25,000 customers and p=
oint
> out that
> you were giving /48s to each of them? If you did, they would not have had=
a
> leg to stand on.
>=20
> However, there has been a bit of a learning curve with ARIN staff and IPv=
6,
> so, there have
> been some errant denials. I'm working on policy to further expand their
> ability to approve
> larger allocations. Expect to see it posted in the next week or so.
>=20
>> THE END
>>=20
>>> or, if you have larger POPs, start with a /24 and
>>> /32 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments
>>> /36 for 16 pops per region
>>> /48 for 4,096 customer end-sites per POP
>>=20
>> Ideal solution, but don't see it happening
>>=20
> Why not?
>=20
>>> ARIN thinks a /32 is the MINIMUM for an ISP. Not the Maximum. Several I=
SPs
>>> have received larger than /32 and all you need to do is show a reasonab=
le
>>> justification for the space.
>>=20
>> See above. You think I asked for a /32? While I'd probably desire a /24 =
for
>> ease of routing and management, I'd only asked for a /31 and was turned =
down
>> with the "Very few will get more than a /32."
>>=20
> When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest
> asking again. If it was less than 6
> months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can add=
ress
> it with Leslie and try and
> get whatever training issues remain resolved?
>=20
>> Hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I asked too early, even though I purpose=
fully
>> delayed asking.
>>=20
> If ARIN is incorrectly denying requests, I'll definitely work on getting =
that
> resolved.
>=20
>> and from your other reply:
>>=20
>>> Yep... Best not to argue with Jack... A much better strategy, IMHO, is =
to
>>> better serve his former customers.
>>=20
>> Good luck on that. My customers like my service and the lengths we go fo=
r
>> them. Obviously, there are always those who are discontent, but we liste=
n to
>> what they want and need, and we make it happen. Feel free to come to rur=
al
>> Oklahoma and compete. The prefix rotation argument has been covered befo=
re,
>> which is why I'd rather keep it to the original argument and probably
>> shouldn't have mentioned it since it always creates a side topic.
>>=20
> The beauty is that we don't have to come to rural OK to compete. We can j=
ust
> let them use whatever stingy amount
> of address space you provide to get a tunnel to us.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
