[ppml] ppml 2002-7
stevek at onshore.com
Fri Feb 14 10:59:35 EST 2003
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Trevor Paquette wrote:
> > We deal with a number of clients who have decided to
> > multi-home -- mainly
> > for redundancy. A number of enterprise managers have expressed
> > concerns about the stability of some providers, and thus want
> > to announce
> > their own blocks. I would rather see them given a /24 or /23;
> > otherwise,
> > it is likely they will try to pump their numbers for a /22.
> > This just wastes
> > addresses.
> And what about the on-going viability of all the companies with their
> own Class C???? What makes people think they so much more stable then
> the provider? What happens to the IP space that they have been allocated
> when they go under?
> We need to learn from the existing telephone companies.. they have been
> doing this for YEARS and have way more experience then we do; assigning
> numbers, dealing with renumbering issues etc.. that is.
> Do you think that the phone companies would allow for everyone to have
> their own phone number and be able to take it with them should they
> move? No.. thought not. Why is that? Think about for a bit.
In principle, I agree with your sentiments. I, personally, believe any /24
assigned from swamp space should be monitored. If it is not being
mutiihomed or exported at all for a period -- of say -- 180 days then the
address space should be revoked.
Address space is unfortunately not like a phone number -- there is no
centralized way to do redirection or update all directories. Re-IPing --
for many enterprises -- is not simple or fast. Most admins will try to
avoid it at all costs, and I have seen some pretty silly steps taken by
admins to keep a particular block.
Senior Network Engineer
More information about the ARIN-PPML