[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Joel Jaeggli<joelja at bogus.com> wrote:
> Bill Darte wrote:
>> 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'....
>
> Realistically is it in the interest of a prospective multihomer to a
> recieve a prefix that's likely longer than the one they already use?

Joel,

I don't follow your logic here. Why would a multihomer request less IP
addresses than he already uses, regardless of the minimum prefix size?


> How quickly does one chew up /32s /30 /28s in the process of multihoming
> the internet facing infrastructure in a smple-multihomed network?

When I was at the DNC, I structured the network to justify a /22. I
really wanted a /23 but a /22 was what I could get.

I'm faced with a similar situation today. I need a /24 but I'll
structure the network so that it justifies a /22. Just to be clear, I
won't tell a single lie. I'll simply structure the network so that
everything which could consume a public IP address does.

I doubt my experience is unique. I expect that many if not most of the
/22 end-user requests are similarly padded, not because the registrant
actually wants that many addresses but because that's what they can
get.

Given the shortage of IPv4 addresses, why structure the policies so
that we give anyone more than they actually want?

Regards,
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