[arin-ppml] Using fees to encourage route aggregation

[Alex Ryu]

One of ARIN's priciple was that ARIN is not responsible for routability of IP address allocated.
If we proceed this idea, this means that ARIN will be involved in operational area of Internet, and I think there are a lot of challenges for operational issues. 

I think this aggregation should be dealt from operational group such as NANOG meeting discussion to come up with best common practice, and enforce it from upstream ISP policy, not from ARIN's.

Alex


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Using fees to encourage route aggregation

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your intervention, Chris. That's exactly where I've been trying
>> to move. In that regard I find it interesting that despite the constant
>> worrying about route aggregation, the proposal I made to use RIR fees to
>> encourage aggregation (or "tax" deaggregation) has not attracted a single
>> comment. People seem more interested in the broad ideological
>> classifications than in assessing specific proposals.
>
> Perhaps people were ignoring the "fairness" thread?  :-)  Or perhaps, like
> me, most people generally agree with that particular point, so there's maybe
> not as much to discuss.  My own thought is that using fees to encourage
> aggregation (discourage deaggregation) would probably work, but that there
> isn't a lot of need for doing so just yet.

Scott,

Before we start talking about fees to encourage aggregation, I think
we should talk about policy structure which assists route filtering.
Given adequate tools to filter TE disaggregation, it's likely that the
ISPs can address the problem on their own without resorting to
communal public policy.

That ship has sailed for IPv4. CIDR combined with imperfect record
keeping and the concept of LIRs assigning addresses to multihomed
entities killed the possibility of disaggregate filtering in IPv4. It
isn't possible to compute with certainty whether or not that /24 is a
unique multihomed entity, not algorithmically based on address class
and not database-driven with a copy of the allocation records.

For IPv4 we are, fortunately, already capable of building big enough
routers to handle the likely maximum disaggregation which should be in
the neighborhood of 6 or 7 million routes.

There's still time to structure IPv6 policy to support disaggregate
filtering, but if we want to to do it without having legacy IPv6 swamp
as large and messy as the legacy IPv4 swamp, our window of opportunity
is closing.

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
_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.