[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Mon Aug 3 11:30:08 EDT 2009


Michael K. Smith wrote:
> What was the rationale for the /20 in the first place?  Was it more than an arbitrary number?

IIRC, it was a compromise between the folks wanting to be PI and the
folks who didn't want their routers to explode.  When routers got
bigger, the minimum went down to /22.

> I can't see any detraction from getting providers to get an ARIN-assigned /24 instead of having to get a /24 from one provider and route it out another, being historically on the "purchasing" side of that arrangement. 

There is one major difference: if you get a /24 from your upstream and
other folks in the DFZ filter it, you can still be reached via your
upstream's aggregate.  If you have a PI /24, there is a much greater
chance of breakage.

> The only downside I can see is providers that think having a customer with their assigned space somehow binds them together, fiscally speaking.
>   

Yes, lock-in is a serious issue.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090803/f3603176/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list