[ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy holders (/wRSA + efficient use))

[Steven E. Petty]

   I'm not certain your assumptions are valid.  I know my workplace is
currently multihomed using a /24 assigned from cogent in the 38.  This
filter would remove my routes.  Under current ARIN policies, our two
dozen or so hosts don't qualify us for a direct assignment/allocation
despite multi-homing.

   Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:08 PM
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative realities (was PIv6 for legacy holders
(/wRSA + efficient use))

<snip>

If someone can come up with a helpful policy, I'm all ears.  But yes, I
do think this kind of thing will be self-correcting, for one simple
reason: you don't have to know who's doing it to filter effectively.  
All you need to know is what the minimum allocation size for each
address range is.  (I know you know all this already, but I'm sure there
are others who don't.)  A quick look at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space and
http://www.arin.net/reference/ip_blocks.html gives me a pretty good idea
that I could filter, more or less safely, anything larger than /8 in the
0/8 to 56/8 range (with a couple exceptions, like down to /20 in 24/8),
down to /16 in the 128/8 to 172/8 range, down to /20 in the 63/8 to 99/8
range, etc.  If I were to implement such a policy, I'd first take a good
hard look at my BGP table (rather than the cursory look I just did), but
it's by no means necessary to identify the specific players doing the
deaggregation in order to appropriately filter it.

<snip>

-Scott
_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml