Proposal for review

[Andrew Dul]

Hello All,

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Cathy Wittbrodt wrote:

>
> I think you have summed it up quite well.  The issue here is
> that the folks who wrote the proposal (not me) feel that having
> separate maintainer IDs, although a somewhat workable solution,
> is not acceptable.

There are two reason why I believe that separate maintainer IDs are not
really workable.  1) Administrative: Multiple maintainers would greatly
increase ARIN and our administrative load due to the increase in number of
address requests that would need to be processed.  2) Cost:  Why should
some organizations pay multiples for the same amount of address space?
$40,000 for 16 /20s vs. $10,000 for 1 /16.


>     From: Lee Howard <lhoward at UU.NET>
>     Subject: Re: Proposal for review
>     I was drafting a long response, because it's a long proposal.  Then I got
>     distracted by work.
>
>     Here's my perspective:  On general principle,
>
>     	ARIN should consider routing when making allocations.
>
>     However, a lot of your proposal seems to affect any organization with
>     multiple regions or maintainers.  I don't think it needs to--let's just
>     address the ones that have problems.
>
>     There are three problems:
>     1.  Organizations which have separate routing domains, which combined
>     justify an initial allocation from ARIN, but separately do not.
>     2.  Two or three ISPs will not accept routes more specific than ARIN
>     allocates.
>     3.  Organizations with separate routing domains may not be able to show
>     80% usage overall, even if several routing domains are full.
>
>     I don't think the first is a problem:  each routing domain gets address
>     space from its upstream until it can justify its own allocation.  Each
>     area gets its own maintainer ID, the fee for which is based on its size.

This is workable alternative for smaller organizations, but under the
current fee schedule there still is a cost issue.  This also wouldn't
apply to some since in most cases they would be able to justify an initial
/20 from ARIN for each routing domain and we are back to where we are now.

>
>     The second is a problem, but it isn't ARIN's problem.
>

I totally agree this isn't ARIN's problem, but as long as some ISPs choose
to limit their route-table size by using a RIRs allocation policy as a
filter we will have to deal with the issue.  What good is an allocation
that isn't routable?  Perhaps time is better spent on making
proxy-aggregation workable to help alleviate route-table growth.


>     The third is a problem with which I am familiar.  There are several
>     alternatives, within current ARIN policy:
>     - get multiple maintainer accounts,
>     - allocate small enough blocks to each routing domain that by the time
>     the first area is out of space, the total usage is 80%.  This option
>     doesn't work if you have discrete networks and no backbone, and isn't
>     worthwhile if you don't have an extra-large allocation.  I still argue that
>     having separate maintainers is a better idea, for a variety of reasons.

While this would work with networks with a backbone, I fear it may cause
more additional routes to be injected into the table.

Andrew