[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multihomed Networks

[Forrest]

I understand the routing table issue as well, unfortunately I've yet to 
see any data that would indicate that a micro-allocation policy would 
cause the routing table to greatly increase in size.  If routing table 
size was such an issue, why aren't more organizations filtering 
based on the minimum allocation size right now?  There are tons of 
organizations right now polluting the global routing tables by announcing 
their large aggregate and announcing every /24 within.  A micro-allocation 
policy could actually cause an overall decrease in # of routes by enabling 
people to filter more efficiently.  If there was a specific /8 set aside 
that the micro-allocations come from, you could filter out all the garbage 
more specific /24's from the other space without disrupting anyone's 
ability to multihome.  

I welcome any comments, and if I'm completely wrong here please correct 
me.

Forrest


On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> All,
> Let me add some comments here:
> QUOTE:
> Use IP space from one of their upstreams on both connections. 
> This can lead to load balancing issues, and also makes the 
> end-user more dependent on the ISP who assigned the space. 
> The ISP's business problems, for instance could force 
> downtime and/or renumbering.
> END QUOTE:
> 
> No offense to any ISP, but this not only happened to us, but it
> is STILL causing us problems.
> 
> My IP block is from an ISP that has poor enforcement of their
> AUP, and as such I got lumped into it. They would not SWIP my
> block, (QUOTE: " that is something we cannot do") and would not 
> reverse DNS while I was bringing up my DNS servers.
> 
> When another ISP issued an ALL MAIL from X SPACE will be blocked,
> we got hurt badly.
> 
> I hate to see the /22 in this, as I am multi-homed and I don't foresee
> the ability to use it in a year. But I understand the routing table issue.
> 
> The one item I do not see mentioned is Cost.
> At one point there was discussion about a reduced price to end-users, that were
> not reselling/leasing etc the space.  What is the status of this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
>