[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

[Joe Maimon]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:49:27AM -1000, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> Okay, so let's forget writing policy to this at the moment. Absent any
>> policy change, would anybody encourage/object to the ARIN board
>> issuing an open letter to the routing vendors to the effect of:
>>
>> "As you know, we're running out of IPv4 addresses. To help mitigate
>> the shortage, we respectfully ask you to implement features in your
>> software which enable and encourage your customers to employ RFC1918
>> IP addresses within their routing infrastructure. Such features might
>> include:
>>
>> icmp-response interface loopback0
>>
>> Originate ICMP warnings and errors for packets received on this
>> interface using the IP address assigned to Loopback0.
>
> There is this little tool out there called "traceroute", you might have
> heard of it. Some of us like it, as it helps keep the Internet running.
> Please don't encourage people to break it just to try and save a handful
> of IP addresses.
>
> If you'd really like a broken Internet just send me your IP and I can
> null route it for you. That way you'll be happy, and we can still keep
> it working for everyone else too. :)
>

Right now there is many a network you cant traceroute through at all due 
to their use of local scope addressing.

For those networks a feature such as this one would be a nice improvement.

Conceivably, the network could be able to view traceroutes across their 
own network unmasked.

The truth of that matter, that while hardly convenient and scalable in 
any but the smallest of implementations, control plane or border nat 
translation achieves the exact same results as the proposed feature.

I dont believe the results of a proper implementation of this feature 
must be as drastic as you paint them.

Joe