[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

Leroy Ladyzhensky leroy at emailsorting.com
Wed Jun 6 21:42:11 EDT 2007

The demand on infrastructure router to hold additional routing table
information has been mentioned several times on this subject....

but if we look at the reason why proposals were reject by ARIN in the past
that discussed this subject...
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-April/006601.html we see that
routing table demands we not in issue raised by ARIN.

also if we calculate this mathematically.. you can see this is not a real

for example ... my math is being rounded and is based of memory so it might
not be 100% accurate, but I think its close.

the last time I checked, a full BGB routing table had about 130,000
routes.... and lets say that ARIN ended up passing out 10,000 /24 address
spaces to companies that requested the smaller block... this would only be a
7.5% increase in the routing table size. And if my memory serves me... the
current routing table uses about 65megs of router memory for each upstream
connection... so this would require about 4 megs of addition router DRAM to
handle 10,000 additional routes per upstream. Do core routers like the "Big
Iron" not have 12 or 16 megs free of DRAM to hold additional routes?

So, do you really think any router in a core network from major ISP's could
not handle this?

This discussion is to not ONLY hand out 24's... but to give /24's or even
/23's to companies who provide internet based services like MSP's and ASP's
who would like to own an address space to have the ability to change
upstream providers as needed.

I really don't buy the idea of stress to the infrastructure of the internet
to handle this. (unless my math is terribly off)

Leroy L.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jo Rhett" <jrhett at svcolo.com>
To: "John Santos" <JOHN at egh.com>
Cc: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

> John, I'm a little confused by your math.
> 2000 customers * cost of changing IP addresses equals... $200 per
> customer if they have to pay an outside consultant to do it for them,
> usually less than $20 for inside help... Not a big number.
> $40,000 <=> $400,000
> Cost of upgrading a single big iron box to have more routing table
> slots > $100,000
> Multiply by the number of big iron boxes who can't use a default
> route, say at least 400?
> The only difference is who is paying for it, and who is gaining value
> for it.  You want us to pay, so that your business can gain value.
> You do the math, and tell me again why I should be paying out of my
> pocket for your customer.  You very well could have explicit
> instructions sent to the customers for IP address changes.  You could
> very well purchase multiple IP ranges from different providers, and
> thus make the importance of any IP address change negliable.  Or you
> could pay $49/month to get a second uplink and then qualify for PI
> space based on multi-homing.
> Every one of those options is trivially cheap and easy to implement.
> This is why I reject your desire to make our businesses pay hard cash
> so that your business can avoid building even the most trivial
> resiliance into your process.
> On May 31, 2007, at 4:39 PM, John Santos wrote:
>> It is the 2000 customers who would have to pay the cost.  It may be
>> small for each, but its cumulative, and will certainly generating lots
>> of support calls back to Leroy's company.
>> My company is in a similar situation to Leroy's customers.  We have an
>> external mail filtering service.  Our published MX records point to
>> the service, and they then forward the (filtered for spam, viruses,
>> RBL, etc.) mail to us, so we have had to open up our firewall to SMTP
>> from their specific IP addresses.  We are certainly *not* going to let
>> them manage our firewalls for us, nor are we going to willy-nilly
>> change
>> our firewall rules on their request without minimally verifying the
>> origin of the request (a support call to them.)  Multiply by several
>> thousand customers.
>> If they were to start changing IP addresses frequently, we would start
>> looking for a new service provider.
>> This is an *extremely* unlevel playing field, since ACME GIANT ASP,
>> INC. (which is many times the size of Leroy's company), could easily
>> justify an allocation, and thus could promise their customers that
>> their IP addresses and firewall rule would never change.
> -- 
> Jo Rhett
> senior geek
> Silicon Valley Colocation
> Support Phone: 408-400-0550
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list