[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Mon Jul 27 14:48:18 EDT 2009
Every effort to lower minimum allocations throughout the years has met
with resistance. Each successful policy managed a 'bit at a time' to
ensure 'nothing bad happened'....
In recent years, there have been few calls for a further lengthening and
those that emerged gained little support.
Proposals are always welcome...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:04 AM
> To: ARIN PPML
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Rationale for /22
> Question for y'all:
> What is the rationale behind a /22 minimum size for
> multihomed organizations? Why not a /24?
> The reason behind /20 for single-homed orgs is fairly straightforward:
> an ARIN allocation adds a route to the BGP table which
> wouldn't otherwise be needed. Routes are expensive and the
> cost falls into overhead since it isn't recoverable directly
> from the org announcing the route. And we're not really
> certain how many routes we can handle before the network
> falls over. So, we restrict the availability of
> non-aggregable IP addresses to just very large organizations.
> For smaller orgs, renumbering sucks but at least it only
> costs the renumbering org, not everyone else.
> The reason behind nothing smaller than a /24 is also straightforward:
> many if not most ISPs filter out BGP announcements smaller than /24.
> There is tremendous inertia behind /24 as the minimum
> backbone-routable quantity going back to the pre-CIDR days of
> class-C addresses. So, an ARIN allocation smaller than /24
> would generally be wasted addresses, unusable on the Internet.
> But why peg multihomed orgs at /22 instead of /24?
> Multivendor multihomed orgs have to announce a route anyway,
> regardless of whether the addresses are from an ISP or
> directly from ARIN. Their routes are not aggregable, even if
> assigned from ISP space. That's the way the technology works
> and no new tech in the pipeline is likely to change it.
> With load balanced server clusters and NAT you can pack a
> heck of a lot of punch into a multihomed /24 if you want to.
> And as a community it's to our benefit to want registrants to
> pack the maximum punch into their address space: IPv4
> addresses are becoming scarce. So why do we restrict ARIN
> assignments to folks who can write papers which justify a /22?
> Excluding conspiracy theories (the big bad ISPs want lock in)
> I'd like to hear ideas, answers and even recollections from
> folks who were there when the size was set as to why we
> should prefer /22 as the minimum multihomed size assignable by ARIN.
> 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
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML