[arin-ppml] Rationale for /22
bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jul 30 18:46:04 EDT 2009
In a message written on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:48:06PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> If I may draw it back to the question I started with: Can you offer a
> well grounded reason to believe that changing the minimum allocation
> size for *multihomed* systems is likely to affect the size of the
> global table?
I believe it is reasonable to assume each decrease in prefix size
allows more orgs to qualify, and thus increases the routing table.
Now it may be we only add 1000 orgs, of which 800 previously were
multi-homing with cutouts, so the net is 200 routes, but that doesn't
mean it's not a decrease.
Your question can't be framed in the absolute. At each size can I
find one person who chooses to multi-home who didn't add to the
routing table under the previous system? Absolutely. Is the number
significant, well, that's what we argue about.
Personally I believe if an org can demonstrate it has multi-homed
BGP connectivity (tunnels don't count, etc) they should probably
be able to get a prefix from ARIN. However, even with that belief I
don't support any drastic moves in the prefix size, worried there is
some tipping point out there where the balance changes radically.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML