[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv4 Micro-allocations for anycast services

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Aug 11 13:00:46 EDT 2005



--On August 11, 2005 9:30:23 AM -0700 "Azinger, Marla"
<marla_azinger at eli.net> wrote:

> David, here are my questions and comments~
> 
> 1. I assume their is a routing reason behind this but just so everyone is
> clear, can you provide the reasoning behind the decision to make these
> allocations come from a "reserved block"?
> 
I can't speak to David's reasons, but, I know I would want them in a
reserved
block so that people filtering on prefix length could allow these blocks to
be
advertised with a minimum of filter wizardry required.

> 2. Does this policy really help anything by allowing /24's as a
> microallocation if you are sincere with the statement below?  Or am I
> misinterpreting it?  Or is this part of a routing rational?
> 	"As many ISPs also filter routes longer than /22, it is
> 	impractical to use a longer mask for any netblock that is utilized for
> 	an anycast service."
> 
I think the belief is that ISPs tend to follow ARIN policy in terms of
filtration
on prefix length.  While ARIN can't and doesn't set routing policy or
guarantee
routability of any prefix, the reality is that ISPs do tend to base prefix
length
filters on RIR policy for the most part.  As such, yes, having /24 prefixes
called out in ARIN policy would most likely help this situation.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050811/747053c8/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list