[ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9
Jeff.Urmann at HFA-MN.ORG
Thu Oct 3 13:41:30 EDT 2002
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.
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:
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
>>>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
>>Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their
>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
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML