[57549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Independent space from ARIN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff McAdams)
Mon Apr 14 10:48:51 2003
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:48:27 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304140942130.1096-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
From: Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--3oCie2+XPXTnK5a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Also Sprach jlewis@lewis.org
>Based on recent activity with www.arin.net, I think they're more concerned=
=20
>with the look & feel of their web site than the actual content. I'd say=
=20
>fire the graphic design person/people and use that money to simply keep=20
>the site up to date and functional or to pay more IP analysts.
=2E..
>There does seem to be either a lack of consistency or some conflicting=20
>policies depending on how many allocations you've gotten. You might get=
=20
>used to one policy and then find it no longer applies to you.
=2E..
>I've run into this too...having ARIN point fingers at past growth and=20
>simultaneously quoting rfc2050 saying to only request 3 months worth. =20
>IMO, that policy sucks, which is why I suggested someone write an update=
=20
>for rfc2050. Actually, once you get used to dealing with ARIN, filling=20
>out the forms the way they want, and have your IP allocation data in a=20
>format that lends itself to easily filling in the blanks on the request=20
>form, getting more space isn't that big a deal, but it still is a pain to=
=20
>do, requires updating filters, router configs, routing registries, etc.=20
>and doing it several times a year just seems like a waste of time. Once a=
=20
>year would be more acceptable.
We're in agreement on these points...
FWIW, our SWIP's are perfectly up to do. While they're not filed
automatically by our billing/provisioning system, it does put in a
ticket into our ticket tracking system to tell one of our technicians to
do it...and our billing/provisioning system is *anal* about it, too. :)
>> Suffice it to say, that would not have been practical in our case.
>If that's the sort of detail you gave ARIN, it's no surprise you've not
>gotten what you want from them.
No, I gave ARIN considerably more detail than that...I just don't care
to share what could be considered internal, proprietary information
about our network on a public mailing list. We don't have a great deal
to hide, and we don't do things drastically differently than many other
networks, but I'd rather not broadcast how we're set up far and wide,
thanks.
>> allocation...we just, again, wanted to renumber out of the PA (what
>> does the "A" stand for, there, by the way?) space, with a /20+. And,
>> no, I'm
>PI =3D provider indepentent (you can take it with you if you change provid=
ers)
>PA =3D provider assigned (switch providers and you lose the space)
>or were you being rhetorical for some reason?
No, I knew the concepts, I just couldn't figure out what the "A"
expanded out to. Nothing more.
>going to have to renumber in 3 months if you want all that renumbering
>to be into a single block. Like it or not, those appear to be the
>rules.
Yup, thus my comment(s) about common sense being dead.
>> given the allocations (both PA and PI) that we have, and we're
>> desiring (for business reasons as well as altruistic) to renumber out
>> of PA space into fewer, but larger, PI blocks. ARIN has been a
>> stumbling block to us accomplishing these things every step of the
>> way.
>Other than doing your part to slow routing table growth (and the
>obvious desire to get as much space as possible, as infrequently as
>possible from ARIN), why do you care how many IP blocks (and what
>sizes) you have? For traffic engineering purposes, there are actually
>advantages to more smaller blocks.
Agreed...having smaller blocks allows finer grained control of
traffic...but for the reasons you noted, there, we're trying to "Do the
Right Thing", as I said. While we're a business, and are in it to make
money, (and successfully do so), we still try to have something of a
community minded approach to dealing with issues of commons (such as
routing table size, ip address depletion, etc.). I know its rare to see
an ISP actually care about things like that for other's benefit...but
that's really, a large part of the reason that we try to do this.
Of course, not having to go back to ARIN every 3 months is a benefit as
well, so its not completely altruistic, but there is certainly an
element of altruism (believe it or not) to it.
>> ARIN has failed to accomplish everything that it was created to do.
>> Its whole purpose for existence has basically not been served.
>It makes a big profit though :) Have you seen their financial reports?
I've been scared to look. I'm already cynical enough about ARIN.
>> Well...as someone else mentioned...apparently you can never fill out
>> an ARIN form without ever being asked for clarification on a
>> different form. Why don't they just have you fill out the second
>> form in the first place?
>Practice.
Well...that gives me hope for the future...and other than being
annoying, wasn't really the crux of my issues with ARIN.
>> And some people wonder why most of the world dreads dealing with
>> ARIN.
>Most of the world doesn't have to...just North America.
True...but my point is still basically valid, if you ignore the
ethnocentrism.
--=20
Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com
Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
--3oCie2+XPXTnK5a5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAj6ayjgACgkQXkUmzpmSrfy//ACfde4TtuS1nNKP4ngLlO9Alr20
Md4AoJ2yXCQg9KENmN2sysoQHgLRgTLb
=dDxT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3oCie2+XPXTnK5a5--
