On Fri, 15 May 1998 15:56:31 EDT, +++ Jeremiah Kristal <jeremiah@fs.IConNet.NET> (jeremiah) said: jeremiah> ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for small ISPs to get jeremiah> provider independant netblocks. They will assign a /20 and reserve the jeremiah> adjacent /20, the customer is allowed to announce the entire /19. jeremiah> For further information, please view http://www.arin.net/initial-isp.html OK, read it. Still indicates a /20 might be announced as a result of failing to comply to the renumbering requirements. Are folks going to update filters or just let these fall into the same category as other multi-homed /20+ blocks? Mark -- Mark D. Nagel <nagel@intelenet.net>, CCIE #3177 in|tele|net communications; 18101 Von Karman Ave, St 550; Irvine, CA 92612 949/851-8250, 949/851-1088 FAX, http://www.intelenet.net/ Cisco Systems Silver Certified Partner

Jeremiah Kristal wrote:

ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for small ISPs to get provider independant netblocks. They will assign a /20 and reserve the adjacent /20, the customer is allowed to announce the entire /19. For further information, please view http://www.arin.net/initial-isp.html

Now, let's `cat post | bullshitfilter.pl` and see what we get: ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for them to make more money by allowing anyone to register for IPs. They will assign a /20 and reserve the adjacent /20... $ Ahh, that makes more sense now. -jamie the cynic :) -- jamie rishaw (dal/efnet:gavroche) American Information Systems, Inc. rdm: "Religion is obsolete." gsr: "By what?" jgr: "Solaris." (1996) Tel:312.425.7140, FAX:312.425.7240

At 08:59 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Kim Hubbard wrote:

...

Jeremiah Kristal wrote:

<snip>

...

ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for them to make more money by allowing anyone to register for IPs. They will assign a /20 and reserve the adjacent /20...

<snip>

ARIN just can't win with some people :-) If we don't change policy, we're evil....if we do, we're greedy. *sigh*

If I remember correctly (someone correct me if I'm wrong here), ARIN is a Non-profit organization. This classification generally means something to the effect that they can't make more money. So, if they begin taking in more revenues due to an increased use of thier services, they must either spend those revenues, or reduce the price of the services. Of course increased usage might mean that they may have to add more hardware/Software/People, etc. <here is where I may be seriously wrong, however....> I do believe that members have a say into how this is resolved, by acting through one of the governing boards? -Chris

On Fri, 15 May 1998, Kim Hubbard wrote:

ARIN just can't win with some people :-) If we don't change policy, we're evil....if we do, we're greedy. *sigh*

The only problem I can see people possibly having is that a small ISP might get stuck with an extra $2500 ARIN fee. i.e. Year 1) Joe small ISP utilizes a /21 and applies for a CIDR block. ARIN allocates them a /20 from reserved /19 ($2500 fee up front). Year 2) Joe small ISP fills up their /20 and applies for the other half of their reserved /19. They owe ARIN $2500 since they received space (as a small ISP) the year before. Year 3) Joe small ISP owes another $2500 because they received space (the top of their /19) in the previous year. So...they've effectively spent $7500 for a /19 instead of the $5000 it would have cost had they been big enough to qualify for the whole block at once. BTW...the ARIN site says "The annual subscription fee will be based on the total allocation of address space received in the previous year." Does this mean calendar year, or year worth of time starting at the ISP's first ARIN allocation? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | http://noagent.com/?jl1 for cheap Network Administrator | life insurance over the net. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____

On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 03:07:20PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:

On Fri, 15 May 1998, James Rishaw wrote:

...

...

ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for small ISPs to get provider independant netblocks. They will assign a /20 and reserve the adjacent /20, the customer is allowed to announce the entire /19. For further information, please view http://www.arin.net/initial-isp.html

Now, let's `cat post | bullshitfilter.pl` and see what we get:

ARIN has made a slight change to make it easier for them to make more money by allowing anyone to register for IPs. They will assign a /20 and reserve the adjacent /20...

That must have been your bullshitify.pl filter.

The change made it possible for many "small" ISPs to truely multihome. FDT is one of them. When I found out about "the change", I was about to renumber FDT into Digex address space, since we did not qualify under the old rules for an ARIN CIDR block (immediately fill 80% of a /19). The /20 Digex was going to give us was in filtered space, meaning anyone filtering BGP like Sprint would not see our advertisements and would only have reached us through Digex...making our additional T1's to the net somewhat pointless.

------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | http://noagent.com/?jl1 for cheap Network Administrator | life insurance over the net.

You should not have had the original problem (IMHO of course). Consider, Jon, what happens if you fail to meet the criteria to keep that whole /19 - some time down the road. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 04:04:46PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

You should not have had the original problem (IMHO of course).

How do you mean?

...

Consider, Jon, what happens if you fail to meet the criteria to keep that whole /19 - some time down the road.

I can see that being a serious concern for really small ISPs getting a /20 from a reserved /19 if they only currently utilize a /21 and have to fill the /19 in 18 months. We had 2 UUNet /20's to renumber out of. Filling the reserved /19 won't be a problem...I just need to file the paperwork to get the top half of the /19 officially allocated.

Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to when they get a bigger block handed to them? Why should your *customers* bear the burden of this policy? My point: you shouldn't, and your customer's shouldn't. You should, as a multi-homed ISP, be able to get a /19 immediately and without obstruction - period. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 04:36:10PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:

On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:

...

Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to when they get a bigger block handed to them?

Well...because I knew from day 1 that our UUNet space was non-portable, and that we were effectively borrowing it.

...

Why should your *customers* bear the burden of this policy?

This was the part that sucked. Renumbering was a bitch, but with proper planning, it really wasn't too big a deal...just lots of work. Renumbering is one of those tasks during which you really find out which of your customers have clues and which are a few clues short of a full deck.

...

My point: you shouldn't, and your customer's shouldn't. You should, as a multi-homed ISP, be able to get a /19 immediately and without obstruction - period.

We didn't start out multihomed. We were singlehomed for 3 years. Are you saying we should have been able to keep our UUNet IP space (even though we left UUNet)?

No. You should have been able to, at the point you purchased the second DS1 and multihomed, been able to obtain a free and clear /19 - end of discussion. To get the SECOND /19 you'd have to show that the first one was consumed. The algorythm is simple - you construct a rate-of-use table for the subsequent allocations which look something like this: Used previous allocation in < 3 months = Add 2 bits to the size (ie: Used a /19 in > 3 months, get a /17 next time) Used previous allocation in < 6 months = Add 1 bit to the size (ie: Used a /19 in < 6 months, get a /18 next time) Used previous allocation >= 6 months, <= 1 years = Same size Used previous allocation >= 1 year = Decrease one bit size UNLESS you were at a /19, in which case we give you another /19 Simple, objective, conservative, automatically rate-adjusts to actual conditions without any gamesmanship possible, "subjective" evaluation, requirement to submit materials under NDA, or anything else. We can tune the "time values" to obtain optimum results, but frankly, I bet these are a pretty good guess. Now tell me why we shouldn't be doing it this way..... Even the largest firms could do this and it would work. EVERYONE starts with a /19 - including Joe's Big Provider. Joe gets a /19. He uses it in a week (since he's Mr. Big) He comes back, and gets a /17. He uses THAT in a week. He comes back, and gets a /16 (2 contig /16s). Things start to slow down (he's getting MAJOR space; 16x more in a chunk now than he started with!) He uses the /15 (that's 512 class "C"s!) in six months, and gets a /14. The /14 lasts him two years, unless he's REALLY Mr. Big, in which case he does this again once or twice more ends up somewhere between a /13 and a /11 (32 class "B"s!) So we just got Mr. Big on the net - completely - with less than a half-dozen announcements. If he SAYS he'll be back in a week up front we do smart things and hold the contig portions for a month or so (to see if he's full of horse-hockey) so we can just expand the original allocation - thereby conserving one or two route entries. Note that even if you don't "hold", it makes no significant difference anyway; a half-dozen route entries is insignificant for someone of this size! Contrast that to what MCI or any other "major" carrier announces today, and then tell me why this isn't a superior, easier to implement, and WORKABLE policy. CC: Arin Advisory Council -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 02:44:27AM -0600, Forrest W. Christian wrote:

Just like to throw an interesting wrench into this whole discussion.

Our current allocations are a /18 and a /19.

Although we are growing fairly quickly here, we're actually seeing negative address utilization here.

The reason?

We started to recommend to our larger customers that their newly-redesigned switched 100Mb/s plus really-flat network might be better served by the 10/8 or the equivalent /16 and /24 address blocks with a proxy server. Better security, less address space utilization.

When a customer who you allocated a /20 to releases it back after renumbering into one of the 10/8-type blocks it makes a big difference when your total allocated space is only equivalent to 6 /20's.

Of course, this is only a temporary reduction, as we are adding several POP's this summer which will consume more than has been reclaimed.

I would be interested if anyone else has seen anything similar.

- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc@imach.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep. We've been doing the same thing for over a year; its temporary, but it will hold us for quite some time. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost

:: Jon Lewis writes ::

The change made it possible for many "small" ISPs to truely multihome. FDT is one of them. When I found out about "the change", I was about to renumber FDT into Digex address space, since we did not qualify under the old rules for an ARIN CIDR block (immediately fill 80% of a /19). The /20 Digex was going to give us was in filtered space, meaning anyone filtering BGP like Sprint would not see our advertisements and would only have reached us through Digex...making our additional T1's to the net somewhat pointless.

Really? What is their new policy? Suppose you can only fill 60% of a /19 ... do they give you a /20 (with permission to announce the /19) and force you to use provider space for the other 819.2 addresses that you need? My point is this: 100% of a /20 is 50% of a /19 ... so if you justify need for more than 50% of a /19, that should be jutification for a /19. (less than 50% of a /19 could be satisfied by a /20). (and likewise for other sizes, both larger and smaller than /19). Does ARIN not see it that way? - Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ... Coming soon to a | Brett Frankenberger .sig near you ... a Humorous Quote ... | brettf@netcom.com