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

Bill Darte billd at cait.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 22 17:26:54 EDT 2003


In a message written on Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:59:19PM -0500, Bill
Darte wrote:
> Sorry, can't support that.... we would do the 'invisible constituency'
> disservice to assign addresses
> that are unusable.

Do you actually believe that this will result in a marked increase
in the number of routes.  Indeed, I'll throw out a number, do you
think this proposal has the potention to cause even 10% growth in
the routing table?

<Response>  Actually I do not.  Yet there are those who do.  I have not seen
evidence either way with exception that we have witnessed no attributable
increase when first the AC lowered the boundary to its present level. <End

Most of the people who want this today have space from an upstream
they are advertising to a second upstream.  That is, the route is
already there.  There will be some new people who get space under
this proposal who never had space (routed) before, but with a 120,000
entry routing table that would need to be 12,000 people requesting
new space to generate a 10% bump.

ARIN's current rate is 214 requests per month, in the busiest month,
that's 2568 per year.  To reach even the 12,000 number you'd have
to have over a 450% increase.  Frankly, with ARIN's current staff
I doubt they could complete enough requests to cause an issue to
the routing table in a year without adding staff.  That alone would
be a safeguard.

<Response>  Of course we would want a safeguard against doing in ARIN's
ability to operate effectively too.... there are many constituencies to
accomodate. <End Response>

The routing table danger here has been grossly blown out of proportion.

<Response>  I for one fully expect and hope that you are correct.  I too
wish to identify and support that invisible constituency if it exists and
needs supporting. I have little evidence of that either.  <End Response>

Bill Darte

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list