[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
--On Thursday, February 27, 2003 4:41 PM -0800 william at elan.net wrote:
> I have not missed this point, in fact I already made a draft available in
> separate email to this list for proposal that would require ARIN to make
> micro-assignments from specific class-A and in fact to try to keep size
> of assignments about the same for each /8 ARIN has and make information
> about this size of smallest announement for each /8 publicly available
> (to be fair they already provide this information on website even now).
> I also argued before against what are otherwise fairly good proposals
> 2002-5 and 2002-6 on the grounds that they do not include provision that
> when changing to smaller size block then /20 ISPs must get allocated
> space from /8 block here other micro-allocations are also being made and
> where ISPs do not filter it on /20 boundary.
But regardless of where the allocations come from, there will still be lots
of allocations that cannot be summarized that otherwise could be summarized.
> In addition I have to point out again that both APNIC and RIPE are making
> assignments smaller then /20 out of their blocks which seems to indicate
> a support of this among majority of RIRs. And this also means no matter
> how we look at it, smaller announcements would still dominate routing
> table if the grows of internet in the countries that represent 90% of the
> World population continues.
I am not intimately familiar with RIPEs or APNICs policies. However,
according to RIPE-269 you are not correct:
IPv4 CIDR block Default RIPE NCC Smallest RIPE NCC
Allocation Allocation / Assignment
62/8 /19 /19
80/8 /20 /20
81/8 /20 /20
82/8 /20 /20
193/8 /19 /29
194/8 /19 /29
195/8 /19 /29
212/8 /19 /19
213/8 /19 /19
217/8 /20 /20
APNIC does have a policy for multi-homing though I am not familiar with it.
I am sure somebody else here can provide more accurate information.
> And as far as load on the routers we have Moor's law that says that they
> would become twice as fast every two years, the grows of the routing
> table as seen at http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html is a
> lot smaller and everything does indicate that routers are becoming faster
> and smarter and more capable and new technologies are also being invented
> that help to deal with more complex routing table.
Well, routers are getting faster and smarter, but you are assuming that
routing table growth and routing table computation increase linearly with
respect to one another. I do not know enough about route computation
algorithms to say one way or another.
But can multihomed joe end user afford the latest and greatest 6 and 7
figure router? Many people are running low-end or old routers that are
being pushed to the limit. What about them?
Just so we're all on the same page, I am all for doing what is best for the
entire Internet. I realize I have mainly been arguing routing table issues
against reducing the minimum size, but that is mainly because of the fact
that there are very few people arguing those points, and I feel it is
important for both sides of an argument to be presented.
Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
Chief Technology Officer
Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com