[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
william at elan.net
william at elan.net
Thu Feb 27 18:14:36 EST 2003
<reply comments inline>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> --On Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:43 PM -0800 william at elan.net wrote:
> > At least they will get the space they actually need and not try to get
> > /20 and not use 80% of it, so in the end we get some space conservation.
> The space people 'need' is only one side of this discussion. The structure
> of the routing table is another issue that cannot be ignored.
Agreed. That is why multihoming (and not just saying so or just requiring
an ASN but actually verifying that it is done) must be part of the deal.
> I do not think anybody is disputing the point that provider independent is
> easier for many reasons. However, addresses are addresses, and while
> renumbering may be annoying it is really not that difficult when you
> structure your system properly.
We're not in ipv6 age yet. In ipp4 renumbering, no matter how well the
network is setup, is difficult - especially when dealing with large enough
network. You have to change setup in most several routers (include firewall,
switches as well as changing filters, change setup in many computers
(even dhcp will not completely solve things), change dns (both nameserver
ip and actualdns zones). So let me respectively disagree with you about
how easy renumbering is.
> The key here is that we consider all of the issues surrounding ARIN's
> minimum allocation size. If we just focus on people lying, how much of a
> pain it is to renumber, or the routing table structure individually then we
> will not come to a conclusion that satisfies all of the issues.
I agree with you. And considering widespread difference in opinion on this
micro-assignment issue we may not be able to get everybody to support any
policy proposal so a compromise proposal that has support of majority but
may not go far enough for some but too far for others maybe the answer.
This is a tipical situation with the how laws are made.
And on specific points you have above:
honesty: Proposal has to provide for good way to catch people who are
lying and to minimize the abuse. Many believe that relying only
on ARIN staff to catch those who lie does not work (you said it
yourself!). ARIN becoming net-police also is not an answer to
stop possible abuse.
renumbering: I think I already said enough on this above.
routing table: Multihoming organizations are already announcing part
of their upstream's block as separate BGP announcement. Having
them announce their own block would not change size of the
routing table, but good provisions must be put to check that
those requesting micro-assignments are indeed multihomed.
Relying on them just having an ASN without futher verification
may not be enough.
> > I do hope you are wrong how widespread "lying" is and what exist is
> > likely the result of larger size on ARIN's initial assignment anyway.
> Well getting accurate data on that would be tricky.
Yes. So lets drop this point.
> > Would be good to compare with what is happening at RIPE or APNIC, none of
> > them have this large initial allocation size, yet they seem to use space
> > more "conservatively" and use less of it eventhough grown of internet
> > there is larger now then in US.
> I'm curious, where do you get your data on this (internet growth and
> address space utilization)?
Amount of space used from ARIN's statistics, still shows ARIN ahead of
others in yearly grown (its evening now), this statistics are presented on
each ARIN's meeeting and are not under dispute.
Amount of growth from multiple sites, each one of them uses different
methods so results are questionable by different parties' views. Opinion
about grown of internet larger outside of US is my own based on results
from these and other sites:
http://www.cybergeography.org/statistics.html (likes to many other sites)
Others sites I can't remember without looking deep into my bookmarks and
history of websites I'v visited.
> Also, RIPE uses a very different system for allocating addresses, every
> time a RIPE LIR wants to make an assignment you have to get permission from
> RIPE (Cathy Wittbrodt calls this the "Mother May I" system).
That seems to indicate that in RIPE-land RIPE has the strictest policies
and ISPs are more liberal. In ARIN-land the situation may actually be
completely opposite. At least some of the opposition I'v seen to previous
proposals came from ISPs who believe they know how to assign ips properly
and whome to and do not think ARIN can do the same. That view is supported
by that support for the micro-assignments in part comes from those
organizations who have problems getting ip space from their upstreams and
believe ARIN can do a lot better for them and at least it has well-known
policies and procedures that can be argued and changed if necessary.
> Alec H. Peterson -- ahp at hilander.com
> Chief Technology Officer
> Catbird Networks, http://www.catbird.com
More information about the ARIN-PPML