[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-3: Micro-Assignments forMultihome d Networks

[jlewis at lewis.org]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:37:18AM -0400, jlewis at lewis.org wrote:
> > Supporting this (IMO) is http://www.arin.net/policy/2001_2.html
> 
> To be clear, it supports the assertion that everyone getting a /24
> will not hurt the routing table, not that ARIN should assign /24's.

Unless there are many networks filtering on RIR boudaries (anyone know how 
many do this?), what's the routing table / routing table growth difference 
between a network getting their /24 from C&W vs from ARIN if they are 
going to have their own ASN and announce it to multiple providers as a /24 
either way?

The only obvious downside I see is application fraud by networks wanting
to get their own /24 without satisfying the multihomed requirement.  
Maybe add in that if a network is not consistently multihomed for X
months, they have to give up the block, or it begins to go up considerably
in price.
 
> Perhaps the way to do this is to just conservatively limit the "test
> program".  That is, move ARIN's boundry to /24, but if ARIN will
> be limited to no more than 200 networks per month between /20 (the
> current limit) and /24), for the first year, at which time the proposal
> must be renewed to be continued.

That would just cause a flood of applications on the first of each month, 
assuming there are considerably more than 200 nets that would take 
advantage of this policy change, and they're aware of the 200/month limit.

> So, that's a maximum exposure of 2400 new routes globally (about 2%
> increase, worst case).  If that actually happens after a year it can be
> voted down as a failed experiment, but if as I believe the real rate 
> is an addital 20-50 requests per month on average giving us modest
> growth it can be reapproved, possibly without the cap moving forward.

Why do you think there will be any growth?  Short of the fraud issue
mentioned above, all these /24's are already in the global routing table.

One place there would be growth is the in-addr.arpa DNS delegations...but 
I haven't heard anyone complaining or worrying about that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis *jlewis at lewis.org*|  I route
 System Administrator        |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net                |  
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________