[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
bill at herrin.us
Fri Nov 6 20:29:23 EST 2009
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>>> 1) Makes moot whether the requesting ISP is multihomed or not, with
>>> this policy change all initial ISPs request under the same minimums.
>> I disagree with offering small PI blocks to entities which are not
>> multihomed. While any registrants benefit from receiving a PI block,
>> only multihomed entities do so without creating new overhead cost for
>> everybody else.
> Multihomed entities are already obtaining larger allocations
> and subnetting them, as I stated in the Rationale.
> Your making a claim here that the simple property of
> being multihomed somehow acts as a deterrent to an org for
> subnetting, and splitting their advertisements, thus
> creating new overhead cost for everyone else.
> The fact is that entities that are NOT multihomed have
> far more incentive to advertise all their space as a
> single block, with the lowest overhead to everyone else -
> and entities that ARE multihomed have an incentive to
> split their advertisements - and create more overhead cost
> for everyone else.
> In short, logic seems to indicate that it's completely opposite from what
> your suggesting.
That's why I'm an engineer and not a philosopher. Logic alone leads to
all sorts of falsehoods.
The above, for example, is a straw man argument. A single homed entity
can't engineer traffic to take one path or another since there is only
one path. Hence they won't tend to disaggregate for TE like a
multihomed entity might. Hence multihomed entities are more likely to
disaggregate whatever sized block.
But that's entirely beside the point. Single-homed entities require
zero routes in the DFZ to function as designed on a day to day basis
while multihomed entities require at least one. That was the point.
Not talking convenience here, not even typical practice, just basic
minimum function. Excluding single-homers discourages the group whose
systems will still work right from announcing any routes at all while
multihomers will announce as many if not more routes regardless, just
not using addresses directly allocated from ARIN.
To be completely honest, it's no skin off my back either way. When the
DFZ passes 1M entries, I only have to replace a few $1500 routers. I
suspect, however, that the folks who spend half a million per router
may see things from a different perspective... one that would prefer
to see few folks in the "zero routes required" category actually
showing up in the table.
If I hear different from the likes of Verizon and AT&T, I'll drop my objection.
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