too many routes

[moved from nanog to a more appropriate forum]
On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:

> 
> >I would think the latter.  If so, would anyone know why it is that the
> >backbone providers are so resistant to giving out blocks to do this?
> 
> If backbone operators do not efficiently allocate IP space to their
> downstream customers then the next time they need additional IP space they
> will not be able to get any. Everyone in the food chain has to operate
> under the same policies of justifying IP space based on need and using the
> space efficiently. There is more info on this at http://www.arin.net and in
> particular you should have a look through the recommended reading section
> especially any documents relating to CIDR.

How do the rules of rfc2050 apply though when you have a hierarchy of
providers and customers, where often the customer is a provider?  i.e. 
picture the food chain I'm part of.  UUNet provides a T1 and 2 /20 blocks
to FDT (an ISP).  Should UUNet give FDT address space based on the 25%/50%
rule or the "slow-start" procedure?  FDT provides T1 service to several
smaller ISP's.  Do we allocate space for them using the 25/50 rule or the
slow-start rule?  These smaller ISP's that feed from us have customers
using multiple IP's (selling web space to others).  Do they [the smaller
ISPs] assign space to their customers using 25/50 or slow-start? 

It seems the rules are either too simple for the real world or were
written with the idea that there are only providers and end users, and
that nobody would be both.

------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis <jlewis at fdt.net>  |  Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
 Network Administrator       |  be proof-read for $199/message.
 Florida Digital Turnpike    |  
______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____