NAIPR Message

when & how could policy be changed

Michael,

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> At 5:55 PM -0400 6/30/97, Gordon Cook wrote:
> 
> > is there a view from the arin board that with stringent
> >dampening it could agree to give everyone a 19/?   or are you saying that
> >it would not have do this because the 'big boys' would all agree to route
> >20/s?
> 
> First, let's not forget that ARIN is a membership organization and the the
> "arin board" is the Board of Trustees, not "Directors". One would hope that
> the board members will not "direct" but will act on behalf of the members.
> Therefore, the view from the ARIN board is less important than the
> collective views of the ARIN members.

  Lets hope that this is the prevaling attitude or the Board of
Trustees.

> 
> I don't think anyone is certain what preconditions would need to exist in
> order for a policy change that would grant every bona-fide multihomed ISP a
> PI prefix but we can see the possibility of having operational realities
> considered as part of the policy since the network operators will likely
> all be members of ARIN. But I don't think we can clearly see how routing
> table sizes, dampening algorithms and filtering will work into the equation
> until we have some substantive discussions among ISPs. Right now a lot of
> them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping quiet for some
> reason.
> 
> I personally would like to see some PI space opened up with longer prefixes
> than /19. This could be a new /8 like 210/8 that we all agree to allocate
> in /20 blocks. Or we could use reclaimed space from the swamp and allocate
> it in /20 and/or /21 sizes. In the case of 210/8 we need providers to agree
> to adjust their filters. But before we can decide just how this should be
> done we need some hard numbers, especially on how many additional routes
> the new PI space would add. And we also need some more thorough analysis of
> the prefixes that appear to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR
> reports.

  Good suggeation in principal.  I would like to see some hard policy
suggesting that an under some more open capability to be allocated
/19's or /18's in the case of smaller or new ISP's.
> 
> >Again, how would you implement such dampening criteria?  call a meeting of
> >the Internet Cabal?  Ask the IETF to pass a resolution in Munich?
> 
> The Internet Cabal is the product of a fevered imagination and has more to
> do with USENET than the real Internet so they are irrelevant to this
> question. And I don't think that an IETF resolution is as important as
> getting some agreement from the network operators themselves. Remember, the
> IETF deals more with standards and protocols while the issue of IP
> allocations is currently difficult mostly because of operational issues.

  Agreed in here.  It does seem that if RFC2050 and RFC1918 are to be
used
as guidelines, than some clarification need to be done within these
RFC's by the IETF, or some broadening of the interpratation of those
RFC's by the ARIN.
> 
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon                    voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect            fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.              http://www.priori.net
> 
> "The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com