ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> We also need to be sure the wording here allows for discontiguous
> space, we don't need a /16 all together.  If ARIN has dribs and
> drabs of /24's this is a /perfect/ use for them, while not all
> micro-allocations are /24's I think that's by far the largest number
> and they are generally used in non-aggregatable ways.

Hi Leo,

I concur, but if you'll pardon me waxing a tad pedantic there are some
arguments for the other side of that coin: If someone decided they
wanted to filtering on /22 and /23 boundaries for some reason,
grouping critical infrastructure together would allow that individual
to avoid dropping routes for networks considered critical
infrastructure.

Practically speaking, though, nobody is going to start filtering IPv4
on boundaries other than /24. Tried it. Didn't work out.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004