when & how could policy be changed

Stephen,

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> At 10:51 01-07-97 -0700, you wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I'm sure network operators around the world will be watching intently at
> the first ARIN meeting; this issue is sure to come up.  What are the
> expectations on proposal/voting procedure for ARIN?  Can we expect a policy
> decision during/after the first meeting?
> 
> >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.
> 
> I doubt the large ISPs will take a position for or against this proposal
> prior to the first ARIN meeting.
> 
> >Right now a lot of them are either not on this mailing list or are keeping
> >quiet for some reason.
> 
> Unfortunately these days most people "agree" by not saying anything.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what would be the rationalization for using more of the
> (almost depleted) class C networks instead of a class A?  There's close to
> a hundred A's available, and RIPE-155 has shown that a class A is perfect
> for this kind of plan.
> 
> Is anyone interested in debating the conditions, size, or class for such
> allocations?
> 
> >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.
> 
> In the case of 4096x /20 PI allocations, it would be reasonable that within
> the first 2 months the number of routes will increase by 4096 (and hit the
> 50k mark again).
> 
> The trick, however, is to allocate them and place restrictions on them such
> that after 60 days an equivalent or larger number of routes would be
> dropped, as small ISPs were able to transition out of the PA blocks they
> currently advertise as more-specifics.  I'm sure the large ISPs would be
> happy to increase filtering on the PA blocks to "encourage" the return of
> said more-specifics.
> 
> >And we also need some more thorough analysis of the prefixes that appear
> >to be eligible for aggregation in the weekly CIDR reports.
> 
> It'd be nice if there were some way to penalize ISPs on the "most wanted"
> list.  Perhaps denial of new allocations based on measurable routing
> inefficiency?

  This might be something looking in to.
> 
> Stephen

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