[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[John M. Brown]

See below

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Urmann [mailto:Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:26 PM
To: 'john at chagres.net'
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:18 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net)
wrote: 

>>The prime issue here is about routing table size.  Memory is 
>>cheap, CPU is even fairly cheap today.  Yet there is a point 
>>at which it is "costly" to lookup your route.  Even using 
>>some of the new Radix methods its still costly in the sense 
>>of latency and other metrics. 

>I would like to have a non-routable /24.  Since you think the 
>prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could 
>set aside address space for non-routable /24s.  Then both of 
>us would be extremely happy.  How`s that for a compromise? 

The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set
aside address space for exactly this use.

Please READ  RFC-1918 on Private IP Space.
Your choices are:

10.0.0.0/8
172.16.0.0/12
192.168.0.0/16


>There are 33,000 registered business in New Mexico (my home 
>state).  We are a small state.  
>If we say that the average state has 15,000 businesses that 
>should have a /24, that would create a routing table around 
>750,000 entries. 
>That doesn't scale well.  Memory requirements far exceed current 
>in production routing equipment.   Further route flap from all 
>of these prefix's could cause more BGP traffic than SPAM does. :) 

>So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ 
>forever?  Or only available to the fortune100?  All because 
>routers are slow?  Make /24s available to small businesses and 
>router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. 

The addresses are not "reserved" forever.  If you look at the 
allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved
from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR.
Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers.

Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like
saying.  If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in
it.  There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine
in the car.  e.g it does scale well beyond a 351.


>>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. 

>Which companies did you poll?  My numbers would be significantly 
>different.  But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. 

2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report
less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not
need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc)

If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will
be significantly different. :)


>>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works 
>>well for the various users of the space.  Allocating /24's to every 
>>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the 
>>global internet. 

>Obviously I disagree.  Providers will just have to upgrade their 
>routers.  ;) 

Can't upgrade what doesn't exist.  

Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade"
their routers???  Not even talking about the large providers.

>So what if we run out of IP addresses.  If I can`t get one because it 
>is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent.  Don`t punish me. 
>Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations 
>to get unused space back.  All of these addresses are currently in 
>the routing tables; aren`t they?  Maybe providers should remove 
>these addresses from their tables.  That should speed things up 
>a bit??? 

Running out and reserved is apples and oranges.

No the reserved space is not in the routing table.  Only the 
announced and currently used space is in the table.


john brown