[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9

[Jeff Urmann]

As many have pointed out, (thank you) RFC1918 is the correct approach for
my unrealistic request for a non-routable public /24.  I will just have
to convince CompanyB to negotiate a private address for us to NAT; nobody
will have to renumber.  I`m not sure what I`ll do if they continue to
insist on a public address.

Although this has started other interesting threads, I do now realize that
I can not waste any more of your time on this one issue.  I hereby rescind
my request for a non-routable public /24.

Thank you for all of your very constructive feedback.

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20021003/969489a7/attachment.htm>