[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

My own proposal is not to slow down the rate of new entrants who need 
routing slots to multihome.  The number of those is growing, but IMO is 
still manageable.  Rather, I want to help prevent the unnecessary 
addition of multiple non-aggregatable routes per ASN, i.e. by requiring 
that transferees get 6-12+ months worth of IP space at a time, rather 
than allowing them to pick up multiple smaller blocks one by one.

-Scott

Randy Bush wrote:
>> I agree that TE deaggregates will be first to be filtered
> 
> and intentional de-aggs that are not even TE
> 
>> but I think it's important that any policy we put in place doesn't
>> create a whole bunch more small unique routes covering end-sites.
> 
> oh?  what if those are legitimate users and new entrants who need unique
> routing because they are multi-homed or whatever?  somehow i do not
> think that intentionally preventing them by policy is going to stand up
> for very long.
> 
> ipv6 and nat-pt (or whatever the tvtf calls it to save face) or massive
> ipv4/ipv4 nat, whichever way it goes (or it goes both ways!) is gonna
> cause many *legitimate* small prefixes to be injected in slowly
> increasing numbers.  get over it.
> 
> this is simply what happens when ostriches pretend there is no need for
> architectural change in routing given a world where the scale is
> ever-increasing.  the result is you need to handle more routes.  <doh>
> 
> this is far from new.  welcome to the new line card every year club.
> what is needed is not policy preventing entrants into the market, but
> rather router vendors to supply routers that can carry the load.
> 
> and you can push it out a few years by beating on the vendors to give us
> knobs to stomp non-product deagg.  i have cases filed with j & c for
> years, and a mailbox of excuses to match.
> 
> or you can go down the path of lisp.  watch out, on the third step there
> is a sign "magic will happen here".  but at least dino is working on the
> problem a opposed to blowing glossy paper at us.
> 
> or you can go down the path of multi-natting from PA space with a policy
> of giving all the PI space to the largest providers.  and if you think
> you can do the latter without having to explain it all to lawyers and
> politicians (which may not be a bad thing.  it can't be all that much
> harder than explaining it to amateur policy-making friends, and it sure
> will be more effective), please share what you are smoking.
> 
> randy