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

McBurnett, Jim jmcburnett at msmgmt.com
Thu Feb 27 21:29:51 EST 2003

Okay I have a few questions here see inlne:

> From: Alec H. Peterson 
> But there is one key point that you have missed (and many people have 
> missed).  While the number of prefixes may not change, the 
> structure of the 
> table will change.  Right now, a /24 out of one of UUnet's 
> /14s is part of 
> a larger aggregate.  If this UUnet customer has his own /24 
> this is not 
> part of a larger aggregate.
As I read this: This means that the ARIN Micro allocation may
be more likely to be globally routeable than the UUnet Class C
multihomed Class C.... True / False?
If this is TRUE, then why would anyone not want to do this?
>From the customer stand point: Hey I like this!!
>From the ISP standpoint: 
	My block(s) is(are) now summarizeable again!!
	AND IT makes it much easier to allow a Multihomer to
	be a customer!
> What is the impact of this?  Well, with today's routing table 
> and routers 
> nothing.  However, history has prooven that it is sometimes 
> necessary to 
> not accept all announcements, and the easiest way to deal 
> with this is to 
> filter on RIR allocation boundaries.  If we move forward with 
> having ARIN 
> allocate /24s then we are tying the hands of the backbones 
> that we all 
> depend on.  Making these microallocations out of a separate 
> block would 
> help mitigate the issue, but there would still be far more 
> prefixes out 
> there that are not part of smaller aggregates, which is the 
> fundamental 
> issue here as I see it.
> As I have said in the past, there are so many new mistakes we 
> can make, why 
> must we insist on making the same ones again?

YES, we must make mistakes, but now let's learn from this one and 
move on.. 
I would like to see the latest policy as it stands now...

I think that Micro-Allocations is something we MUST do..
Routing table- I think this issue is probrably null?
ISP involvement? I think Alec just hit it
	has anyone here ever had to carve out a /24 from a /14 and then 
	re-define BGP networks to remove it?
	This time savings for some high $$ network Eng
	and on to a low $$ sales/cust care person.. hmmmm
	Either way- adding an ASN to filter into an ASN should be easier
	with the IP's coming from a non-ISP block!!!


does this sway anyone's thoughts? or is it just bait?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list