[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[Scott Leibrand]

My own proposal is not to slow down the rate of new entrants who need 
routing slots to multihome.  The number of those is growing, but IMO is 
still manageable.  Rather, I want to help prevent the unnecessary 
addition of multiple non-aggregatable routes per ASN, i.e. by requiring 
that transferees get 6-12+ months worth of IP space at a time, rather 
than allowing them to pick up multiple smaller blocks one by one.

-Scott

Randy Bush wrote:
>> I agree that TE deaggregates will be first to be filtered
> 
> and intentional de-aggs that are not even TE
> 
>> but I think it's important that any policy we put in place doesn't
>> create a whole bunch more small unique routes covering end-sites.
> 
> oh?  what if those are legitimate users and new entrants who need unique
> routing because they are multi-homed or whatever?  somehow i do not
> think that intentionally preventing them by policy is going to stand up
> for very long.
> 
> ipv6 and nat-pt (or whatever the tvtf calls it to save face) or massive
> ipv4/ipv4 nat, whichever way it goes (or it goes both ways!) is gonna
> cause many *legitimate* small prefixes to be injected in slowly
> increasing numbers.  get over it.
> 
> this is simply what happens when ostriches pretend there is no need for
> architectural change in routing given a world where the scale is
> ever-increasing.  the result is you need to handle more routes.  <doh>
> 
> this is far from new.  welcome to the new line card every year club.
> what is needed is not policy preventing entrants into the market, but
> rather router vendors to supply routers that can carry the load.
> 
> and you can push it out a few years by beating on the vendors to give us
> knobs to stomp non-product deagg.  i have cases filed with j & c for
> years, and a mailbox of excuses to match.
> 
> or you can go down the path of lisp.  watch out, on the third step there
> is a sign "magic will happen here".  but at least dino is working on the
> problem a opposed to blowing glossy paper at us.
> 
> or you can go down the path of multi-natting from PA space with a policy
> of giving all the PI space to the largest providers.  and if you think
> you can do the latter without having to explain it all to lawyers and
> politicians (which may not be a bad thing.  it can't be all that much
> harder than explaining it to amateur policy-making friends, and it sure
> will be more effective), please share what you are smoking.
> 
> randy