[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[John M. Brown]

Please explain why you need "public" but non routable address space ??

The difference between Public and Private is all about routability.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeff
Urmann
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:14 AM
To: 'ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9


On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:50 PM John M. Brown (john at chagres.net)
wrote: 
>>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 
In a previous message on this list I already indicated that I 
need *public* non-routable space.  My apologies for not 
specifying it here. 
>>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. 
Great!  Now I`m asking for them to allocate me a public 
non-routable /24.  This will not affect the routing table size 
issue.  If I can`t get non-routable, then routable will be fine. 
Therefore I fight both battles here. 
>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. 
My comment was indeed naive.  However, internal combustion technology 
and silicon technology are significantly different.  Silicon 
technology has historically changed rapidly when the market has 
*forced* it. 
>>>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) 
ARIN wouldn`t give them a /24 anyway; they wouldn`t meet the criteria. 
Others would, why turn them away.  Since you do not believe that these 
numbers are large, then changing from /20 to /24 shouldn`t be that 
big of a burden on the routing tables. 
>If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will 
>be significantly different. :) 
My point was that I can pull numbers from the air too.  Posting 
unsubstantiated statistics do not make statements true.  My less 
than large company (and others that I am familiar with) do not jive 
with the numbers that were given. 
>>>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 you are saying that it *is* about economics.  A previous message 
from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern. 
Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment. 
>>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. 
True for some of the reserved (e.g. RFC1918). 
>No the reserved space is not in the routing table.  Only the 
>announced and currently used space is in the table. 
I was not referring to the reserved space in reference to the 
routing table size.  I was talking about the allocated unused space. 
Some large companies hold multiple /8-24s but most likely do not 
utilize any of them fully.  They may get by with one /16 sub/super 
netted properly. 
>john brown 
Jeff Urmann