Also Sprach bdragon@gweep.net

...

Yes...following policy over common sense. Exactly as I feared.

Or some would say that the policy _is_ common sense.

Uhm...only someone on the moon, maybe. Their (unpublished) policies are seriously lacking in common sense...I think that's been shown in my postings...and acknowledged by any of the number of people here that are much more expert at dealing with ARIN than I am.

Sometimes it makes things harder, you deal with it, or in your case, you whine about it on mailing lists.

Or, you try to reform the situation by shedding light on the inadequacies of the institution.

You claimyou were efficiently utilizing the space, but of course ARIN can't defend themselves, so we are left to believe you. Even if you _are_ telling the truth, the number of folks on this list who have stated that they've advocated lying, or have helped people lie seems to tell me that ARIN shouldn't believe you.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread advocate lying...though I don't follow all nanog posts, so I don't know if it may have happened in other threads...if so, I find that reprehensible. More than that I can't say.

...

Again, we had greater than 80% utilization on *all* of our blocks...not just the most recently allocated one, and closer to 90% on most of them. The documentation that we gave to ARIN in support of our request showed this as well.

So you say.

So...at this point, your defense of ARIN is to assume that *I'm* lying. Great.

...

My "error" was that I expected ARIN would give me enough space to renumber out of my current space as their documentation on their website seems to indicate is necessary. Silly me.

So, you did absolutely nothing. This is a common problem with many on nanog. If I can't do something 100% my ay, I'ld rather do nothing.

I did nothing because I was told by ARIN that I wasn't expected to re-number...that it wasn't a consideration in the allocation. I offered to renumber in the initial allocation because I was under the impression that it was required, not because we wanted to do it at that time. When they said it wasn't expected, or a consideration, no, we didn't renumber. Then we find out, much later, that it *is* a consideration, and that we're partially screwed because we didn't read their mind that it was a consideration when they were verbally telling us that it wasn't.

...

Yeah, it would be silly of ARIN to actually abide by the documentation that they post on their website...so silly.

I've read their documentation. It sounds like they abided with their policies to me.

Depends on when you ask, apparently. (Actually, neither explanation I got from ARIN, either after the initial allocation, nor the one I got in the process of the most recent allocation, line up with what's on their website).

Oof, so even _you_ translate circuit size into eligibility for address space?

Actually...if you really want to get pedantic, we translate how much money a customer pays us into partial eligibility for address space. We still require justification, but if a customer doesn't have a certain size account, they won't get the address space even if they *are* justified for it. Again, we're going above and beyond what ARIN requires as far as address space requirements...despite your attempt to spin this into being my problem (why you're so emotionally invested in ARIN, I haven't a clue).

How stupid indeed, since circuit size has no bearing on need for addresses (either in support or against).

There is a correlation there...not strict, I'll acknowledge, but generally, larger circuits will end up using larger numbers of IP's. To deny that is as absurd as saying the correlation is strict, or to have a policy of certain size circuits automatically get certain sized allocations. Again, we try to do the Right Thing. I've turned down allocations from upstreams that weren't needed in an effort to prevent address space fragmentation and routing table polution, etc.

If I were ARIN I'ld definately look at your documentation with a close eye.

Again, your defense of ARIN seems to be accusing me of under-handed actions.

Well, good for you. However, if you think you can do this once and be done, you are sorely misinformed.

We haven't had to go back and redesign and renumber our network, because we learned from the first experience and have followed good allocation practices since then. I've gone back and audit'ed our network usage (informally) and it still falls within good allocation guidelines. So, no, I *don't* have to go back and do this more than once...as long as the allocations made, going forward, follow best practices, which we have.

In any event, it all comes down to: you had the opportunity to begin readdressing. You failed to do so on anything but your own terms. Now you (presumably) still have not readdressed and are still whining about it.

You just don't get it. As I mentioned earlier, we offered to re-number at the initial allocation because we thought it was necessary, but ARIN themselves told us it wasn't, that *IT WASN'T A CONSIDERATION*...you seem to keep skipping over this very important point...ARIN told us we didn't need to renumber. They lied to us, full stop. Had they been up-front and said that re-numbering would be a consideration at our next allocation, we would have (grudgingly) worked towards renumbering...again...since they didn't give us sufficient space to renumber, we would not have been able to do so completely, but we would have started the process. Let's be clear on this. Our decision not to start the renumbering process was informed by ARIN telling us it wasn't a consideration. I know I'm repeating myself here, but this is a critically important point that you have repeatedly ignored.

This thread has sapped too much of my time, and the brain cells of the community. Hopefully you'll just go and renumber and quit your bitching.

No, as long as ARIN's policies and actions are ill-founded, they (and likely other relevant...at least tangentially) fora such as nanog will continue to hear about it...from me, and no doubt from others who have to tolerate this charade of trying to protect the public interest. ARIN has failed. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456