nanog mailing list archives
Re: I want my own IPs
From: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:01:36 -0500
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 () 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 () multicasttech com> wrote:On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:57:46 -0700 Michael Loftis <mloftis () 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 () 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.
Current thread:
- Re: I want my own IPs, (continued)
- Re: I want my own IPs Alex Kamantauskas (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Will Yardley (Nov 12)
- RE: I want my own IPs James Laszko (Nov 12)
- RE: I want my own IPs Bill Woodcock (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Wayne E. Bouchard (Nov 13)
- Re: I want my own IPs Leo Bicknell (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Alex Kamantauskas (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Michael Loftis (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Marshall Eubanks (Nov 13)
- Re: I want my own IPs Owen DeLong (Nov 13)
- Re: I want my own IPs Marshall Eubanks (Nov 14)
- Re: I want my own IPs Owen DeLong (Nov 14)
- RE: I want my own IPs Bill Woodcock (Nov 12)
- Re: I want my own IPs Jon Lewis (Nov 13)
- RE: I want my own IPs David Schwartz (Nov 13)
- RE: I want my own IPs K. Scott Bethke (Nov 12)
- RE: I want my own IPs Michael Loftis (Nov 12)
- Re: [nanog] RE: I want my own IPs Dan Mahoney, System Admin (Nov 12)
- RE: I want my own IPs Randy Bush (Nov 12)