[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:43 PM -0800 william at elan.net wrote:
> At least they will get the space they actually need and not try to get
> /20 and not use 80% of it, so in the end we get some space conservation.
The space people 'need' is only one side of this discussion. The structure
of the routing table is another issue that cannot be ignored.
I do not think anybody is disputing the point that provider independent is
easier for many reasons. However, addresses are addresses, and while
renumbering may be annoying it is really not that difficult when you
structure your system properly.
The key here is that we consider all of the issues surrounding ARIN's
minimum allocation size. If we just focus on people lying, how much of a
pain it is to renumber, or the routing table structure individually then we
will not come to a conclusion that satisfies all of the issues.
> I do hope you are wrong how widespread "lying" is and what exist is
> likely the result of larger size on ARIN's initial assignment anyway.
Well getting accurate data on that would be tricky.
> Would be good to compare with what is happening at RIPE or APNIC, none of
> them have this large initial allocation size, yet they seem to use space
> more "conservatively" and use less of it eventhough grown of internet
> there is larger now then in US.
I'm curious, where do you get your data on this (internet growth and
address space utilization)?
Also, RIPE uses a very different system for allocating addresses, every
time a RIPE LIR wants to make an assignment you have to get permission from
RIPE (Cathy Wittbrodt calls this the "Mother May I" system).
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com