[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[Forrest]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> --On Friday, February 28, 2003 7:56 AM -0700 "Alec H. Peterson" 
> <ahp at hilander.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I know exactly what would happen, and you are exactly right.
> >
> > But there is more to the Internet than just you and your company, and the
> > attitude that you are only considering your needs and not the needs of
> > the rest of the Internet is somewhat disappointing.
> 
> That didn't come out quite right.
> 
> What I meant to say is that the connectivity to your company is one part of 
> the issue, and an important one.  But we need to consider the impact that 
> these policies would have on the entire Internet, and you are just focusing 
> on one piece of it.
> 

I'm just focusing on one piece of it because the other pieces have already 
been debated over and over again.  No, routing table growth isn't the only 
thing to take into consideration, and yes it is an important one.  
However, I have yet to see any studies/documentation/whatever that would 
indicate that giving multihomers a /24 would be the collapse of the 
internet as we know it.  If this was truly a large concern, why isn't 
there more of an effort to reclaim the old swamp space, or more of an 
effort to force people to aggregate.  I'll go back to my example of weeks 
ago of someone receiving an /18 allocation and announcing it as 64 
individual /24's (yes, those are out there).

Forrest