[48364] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP renumbering timeframe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Thu May 30 13:25:09 2002
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:24:38 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020530171058.GA46677@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> In a message written on Thu, May 30, 2002 at 11:27:49AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > I'd be mildly concerned that people would see "free IP blocks" and start
> > using them even when not necessary. I think allocating them a /24 from
> > this block only when they have demonstrated need, and don't have any other
> > ARIN assigned blocks, would be far more efficient.
>
> Since the goal is to reduce paperwork, I'm not sure about 'demonstrated
> need', but I could definately endorse "you get a /24 with your ASN if
> and only if you have no other registry assigned space assigned to you".
> I specifically exclude provider allocated space, as I'm assuming the ASN
> goal is to multihome.
Yes, "demonstrating" things to ARIN is remarkably annoying.
Perhaps something along the lines of a /21 to /24 available just for being
multihomed. If you qualify for more IP space, you have to give it back.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
