[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

[Leroy Ladyzhensky]

jon,

please don't take my tone and sarcasm personally it not directed at you, or 
anyone in particular.. just my frustrations.

you say.. "Fewer larger routes benefits everyone"

but what you are actually saying is --- the waste of a limited resource is 
justified because ... "Fewer larger routes benefits everyone"  well.. 
actually only...  ISP's and there hardware budget.

so let me try to understand... IP space that is limited to the point that 
once-they-are-gone----there-gone... and wasting them is justified so ISP's 
don't have to upgrade hardware?? hardware that you are going to have to 
upgrade some time in the near future anyway!!

so lets just waste IP's now to postpone the growth of the size of the 
routing table... so we can save some money now...
and then in 6,8 months or just a year or 2 max... when the routing table 
size grows to a point where hardware will have to be upgraded based on 
current policy and growth...

and after that is done... we can think.... hey.. since we can all support a 
much larger routing table now... lets stop wasting addresses... we can pass 
out smaller blocks... ohhhhhhh.... that's right there (nearly) gone...

how can we get a way from this thinking and begin to move forward... and 
face it... to actually conserve IP's there needs to be an option to allow 
smaller allocations....

The ONLY thing that needs to be considered is HOW the smaller allocations 
get handed out... do the go to anyone who asks.. I would think not... what 
would be the criteria for a company to get a /24 allocation? any input on 
this would be great.

Thanks




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Lewis" <jlewis at lewis.org>
To: "David E. Smith" <dave at mvn.net>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks


> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, David E. Smith wrote:
>
>> In the meantime, though, I've got a couple thousand IPs that I'm not
>> (presently) using.
>>
>> Is it better to have folks like me potentially sitting on address space
>> that someone else could be using now? Or is it better to try to keep the
>> global routing table from ballooning even more?
>
> That depends on how many of "you" there are and on how successfully you
> grow.  Due to changes in core business, our IP usage has always been
> difficult if not downright impossible to predict.  When I've asked ARIN
> for more space, we've always gotten much more than we actually ended up
> using in the short term...but we've always grown and eventually filled it.
> First we went from a /18 to a /17 (much like you went from a /20 to a
> /19).  Then we got an additional /19.  We also have a /20 from an ISP we
> borged, eventually dismantled, and recycled the space.  This has happened
> over the course of 8 years.  Was the fact that at times we had thousands
> of spare IPs worth the tradeoff that we only announce 3 CIDRs from our
> ASN?  Going "by the book" (if our IP usage had been easily predicted) we'd
> have gotten many more smaller allocations, and be announcing several times
> the number of routes.  Fewer larger routes benefits everyone.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>