route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

[Mike Lieberman]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cjw at remarque.org [mailto:cjw at remarque.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 9:46 PM
> To: Mike at netwright.net
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
>
>
>     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.

I don't have to define that.  You keep on trying to place the decision
making within ARIN and I am arguing for a market approach where you don't
need to apply the criteria. Assume the applicant WILL fully route. If the
applicant doesn't where's the foul?

>
>     >
>     > 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.

It's hard to discuss other than to say I disagree. Make it worth enough to
companies to trade in the swamp space and companies will. I don't mean to
offend, but I just have to ask? Have you ever run a true commercial
enterprise? Not just work for one? I have no doubt that the swamp space can
be reclaimed at least in part.

>
> 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.

Never suggested otherwise. Right now the rules are arbitrary and tilt to
certain types of companies over others. That is the complaint. Things are
not fair now.

>     >
>     > 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.

And who are you or me to say otherwise.  This continues to be my point. You
are laying values on others right now.

> A lot more than you think will probably pay.

I don't think you have any clue how much this is worth to some companies.

> 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.
>

I suggest /24 and you come back with a facetious /32. Why? Are the sacred
cows at risk? You know damned well that web hosting sites are just that,
sites of hundreds of web sites on one network. We are talking about
networks. Such arguments are not helpful in the development of sound public
policy.


/* Mike Lieberman                            Mike at NetWright.Net */
/*                         President                            */
/*                       Net Wright LLC                         */
/*                   http://www.netwright.net                   */
/*                 Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053                  */