route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

[cjw at remarque.org]

    From: "Mike Lieberman" <Mike at netwright.net>
    Subject: RE: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread) 
    >
    > Mike,
    >
    > Thanks for your response.  Note that it isn't necessarily true
    > that I have to have full internet routes on my router at home
    > in order to inject a /24 via BGP to two upstream providers.
    
    Yes I'm aware of this, but it is possible to limit this discussion to those
    networks that DO have that need. Others can limp along as they do now.

Sure if you can define who really has the need and criteria that 
can be used to determine one from another.  I know of a number of
companies that need to be multihomed that have no requirement
for full BGP tables in their routers.  

    >
    > How many requests would be generated if, say, we say any
    > organization that meets your requirements below gets a /24?
    
    I think you already have them, they just have /21's right now :-) Further if
    you did a buy back program for those who have swamp addresses and could
    aggregate with new addresses and use the money you get from the sale of the
    /24's to support that, you might actually get more /24's back than you have
    to sell.
    
    > I suspect that you will get many many more than a "few".  I
    > could be wrong, but the issue for ARIN and the other registries
    > is that the take rate for some of these things is not determinable.
    > Further once the policy is changed, it is almost impossible to
    > change it back.
    
    So, do the buy back first and limit the new /24's to the number of /24's you
    recoup. Then there's no harm done.

I doubt that the registries will be able to recoup much if any swamp
space.  THat is another issue all together.  I also think that there
are a lot more folks who will apply for this space than you think.
Swamp folks have no requirement to apply since they have what they
want.  Again, it all comes down to coming up with criteria that will
allow the registries to assess who gets them and who doesnt.  From
that we can get some idea of how many there might be assigned and
then we will have to work with the community (including ISPs) to
determine whether doing it will be good for the network as a whole.
    
The registries have to have a policy that can be written down and
applied fairly.  They can't just pick who has a need on the fly.
    >
    > Ps. and yes I might be interested in one of those /24s for my
    > house.
    >
    
    Yeh, well would you accept the proposition that we are not the normal net
    user?
    I had two T1s to my house when your local community college had a 56K lease
    line.

Maybe not, but my point is that everyone thinks that their connection
and their application is critical and has to be redundant and have
whatever that requires.  A lot more than you think will probably pay.
There are webhosting sites (should we give them portable /32s? )
These are the issues that we are facing.  Opening the flood gates
without some careful analysis of who gets the space and what it
will do to the internet as a whole, is not a good idea.