[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 01:35:22AM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> it seems possible that a lot of people think that others are doing prefix
> length filtering, but that only a few people, or nobody, is actually doing
> it.  the policy process should be informed somehow.  any idea how we can

First we need to think about the different cases:

1) How many networks prefix filter customers...
     strictly based on their allocation?
     allowing between their allocation and a /24?
     allowing anything inside their allocation?

2) How many networks accept longer routes from customers than they will
   pass along to their peers?

2) How many networks prefix filter peers...
     strictly based on their allocation?
     allowing between their allocation and a /24?
     allowing anything inside their allocation?
     allowing based on RIR published minimum allocation sizes?

For instance, if you believed 99% of the networks filtered on RIR
minimum published size, it's likely if the RIR's gave out /28's
they would allow it.  However, if you believe 99% of the networks
filter at a /24 boundry, that would not be the case.  The generic
question "do you prefix list filter" does not provide enough
information to make informed decisions.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080608/ec7aa1ee/attachment.sig>