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

[Jeff S Wheeler]

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 09:11, william at elan.net wrote:
> ARIN makes it very clear when they assign the ip block that they do not 
> guarantee routability. So provider with serious network issue would be 
> free to filter out all the small blocks (do any do that now for swamp 
> space?) and those who receive micro-assignments should understand that 
> they maybe taking a risk when receiving such an ip block. It would also be 
Indeed, the ARIN web site and other materials discourage users from
applying for provider-independent space because it may not be globally
routable, and quite obviously the best way to get globally reachable
space is to request it from your transitors.

However, the current filtering policies in use by carriers are there
today primarily to manage clueless/abusive route table growth, rather
than to impact allocation policy to end-users and small organizations
who are not multihomed, as was necessary and prudent in the mid-ninties.

I do not want to bash Verio, but I will use their policy of filtering
out /24s from non-swamp space as an example.  If you hop onto your
nearest router that carries a full view from a carrier who does not
filter /24s in, say, 69/8 (or route-views.oregon-ix.net), you will find
that there are a number of organizations who were allocated space by the
ARIN recently, and who are cluelessly advertising both aggregates and
many de-aggregates.  One group advertises both a /20, and every possible
de-aggregate /24 as well as others within that recently allocated /20.

Clearly, the maximum allocation length does not necessarily constrain
global route table growth.  Provider filtering will, and I believe that
if a responsible micro-allocation policy is implemented in seperate,
well-defined space (e.g. a /8 or perhaps longer), that will only lend
additional credibility to the ISPs who choose to filter on RIR maximum
allocation length boundaries, or drop /24s as Verio does, etc.

I believe a working reclaimation and reissue plan must be utilized in
this new space, if it is to exist, such that members who are allocated a
/24 - /21 and later grow into a /20 or shorter are able and encouraged
to renumber out of the micro-allocation space, which may be reissued.  I
do not believe that a new swamp is a good use of a valuable /8, however
if old swamp is reissued (and believe me, there are huge gaps in the old
swamp which can be reused) that may wholely satisfy the needs of future
applicants for multi-homer /24s.

I additionally suggest that if new IANA space, or ARIN space in the old
Class B region, is utilized for micro-allocations to multi-homers, that
the space be segregated by allocation-length, such that if I, as a small
ISP, am granted a /22, it will be in a region of the IP space such that
ARIN has published its maximum allocation-length to be /22.  I don't
need to be polluting the route table with de-aggregates, and this once
more lends credibility to ISPs who filter on maximum allocation-length
in order to keep their route tables managable.

--
Jeff S Wheeler <jsw at five-elements.com>