[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks

Paul_Vixie at isc.org Paul_Vixie at isc.org
Fri Jun 8 16:17:24 EDT 2007

> As I've said a couple times recently, I'm not opposed to / am in favor of 
> issuing PI /24s to any multihomed network.

so, PI /24 for multihomers, but not for TE routes or lockin-avoidance?  or,
in light of how easy it would be for a TE route spewer or a lockin-avoider
to just multihome in order to get a /24, do you really just mean "PI /24
for anybody who asks" ?

> If you're multihomed, your PI /24 takes up the same global table routing
> slot your PA /24 would (less space if you had multiple PA /24s from your
> various providers which you'd give up to get PI).

for a PA /24 there's presumably a covering route which makes your addresses
"reachable from the DFZ" even from places who don't hear or filter your /24.
so, there's a bit of a qualitative difference in the case where a /24 isn't
multihomed.  i agree that if it's multihomed, PI uses less DFZ DVRP than PA.

> If you're not multihomed, and not big enough to qualify for PI space under
> current guidelines, sorry, you get to keep using PA.

anybody who wants to multihome can do that pretty easily, and if that's all
it takes to qualify for a PI /24, then we're more or less throwing open the
doors and inviting anybody who really wants a PI /24 to ask for one.  (to me
this isn't a bad idea since the worst DFZ bloat is from TE not multihoming.)

> Otherwise the routing tables really would explode.

by any reasonable definition of that word, the DFZ at 220KP has exploded.  so
when we talk about explosion let's qualify it: "explode again (>1MP)."  and
after than we'll say "explode yet again (>5MP)."  the community's record for
preventing these explosions isn't good; for coping with them, slightly better.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list