[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

Jo Rhett jrhett at netconsonance.com
Mon Apr 30 17:51:01 EDT 2012

On Apr 30, 2012, at 9:19 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Opposed.
> Prefixes announced into BGP are expensive and everybody except the
> originator bears the cost. For a decade limits were placed at /20 or
> /22 in order to indirectly suppress the route count.
> The policy which finally allowed access to /24's balanced this need by
> requiring such /24's to be returned in order to get more addresses. It
> was well understood that end users initially receiving a /24 would
> encounter the grave difficulties associated with renumbering when
> their address needs grew. This compromise was deemed better than
> freezing them out of ARIN addresses entirely until they reached the
> larger threshold size.

While I agree with everything you said here, I want to raise a question.  The point of these limits was to avoid the old routers hitting the 192k wall, and later the 256k wall. Three years ago everyone with routers that could only handle 256k routes hit the wall anyway. It's far past that time, and I really don't know of any production gear still operating in a defaultless mode which accepts less than a million routes.  Anyone with older gear is running crippled anyway, so we don't need to protect them.

Have these concerns been obsoleted?

Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120430/cb7bcd22/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list