[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Mon Aug 3 12:17:21 EDT 2009

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Stephen Sprunk<stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:
>> 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.

Hi Stephen,

We've discussed this point several times in this thread. The bottom
line: nobody actually does this any more, at least not that we've been
able to identify.

In the 2009 backbone, you either carry "full" routes down to /24 or
you carry partial routes and a default. The default takes you to
someone who does carry full routes. Whether those partials are
composed by filtering on the RIR minimums or using some other criteria
(e.g. distant routes) makes little difference.

IMHO, that's the reality on the ground that ARIN policy should target,
not a hypothetical network in which folks carry partial routes without
a default and it works out for them.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list