<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [ppml] ARIN Policy Proposal 2002-9</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>As many have pointed out, (thank you) RFC1918 is the correct approach for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>my unrealistic request for a non-routable public /24. I will just have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to convince CompanyB to negotiate a private address for us to NAT; nobody</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>will have to renumber. I`m not sure what I`ll do if they continue to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>insist on a public address.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Although this has started other interesting threads, I do now realize that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>I can not waste any more of your time on this one issue. I hereby rescind</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>my request for a non-routable public /24.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Thank you for all of your very constructive feedback.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>--Jeff</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>On Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:50 PM John M. Brown (john@chagres.net) wrote:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>I would like to have a non-routable /24. Since you think the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>prime issue is about routing table size, then maybe ARIN could </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>set aside address space for non-routable /24s. Then both of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>us would be extremely happy. How`s that for a compromise? </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>The IETF and the IANA (parent to the RIR's) has already set</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>aside address space for exactly this use.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Please READ RFC-1918 on Private IP Space.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Your choices are:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>10.0.0.0/8</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>172.16.0.0/12</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>192.168.0.0/16</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>In a previous message on this list I already indicated that I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>need *public* non-routable space. My apologies for not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>specifying it here.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>So, we should just leave all of these addresses _reserved_ </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>forever? Or only available to the fortune100? All because </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>routers are slow? Make /24s available to small businesses and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>router vendors will be forced to make it scale well. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>The addresses are not "reserved" forever. If you look at the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>allocation trends you will see that many /8's have been moved</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>from the IANA_RESERVED status to being allocated to a RIR.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>Those RIR's then have allocated them to providers.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Great! Now I`m asking for them to allocate me a public</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>non-routable /24. This will not affect the routing table size</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>issue. If I can`t get non-routable, then routable will be fine.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Therefore I fight both battles here.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Your comment about "will be forced to make it scale well" is like</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>saying. If you want a VW-Bug to go faster, put a larger engine in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>it. There is a point where you can no longer put a larger engine</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>in the car. e.g it does scale well beyond a 351.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>My comment was indeed naive. However, internal combustion technology</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and silicon technology are significantly different. Silicon</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>technology has historically changed rapidly when the market has</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>*forced* it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>>Most small business don't even have 15 hosts, let alone 254 of them. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>Which companies did you poll? My numbers would be significantly </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>different. But I do not have facts, so I will not publish them. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>2000 of 2800 members of the Greater ABQ Chamber of Commerce report</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>less than 15 FTE's or are in a business where their FTE's do not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>need access to computer (eg retail sales, etc)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>ARIN wouldn`t give them a /24 anyway; they wouldn`t meet the criteria.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Others would, why turn them away. Since you do not believe that these</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>numbers are large, then changing from /20 to /24 shouldn`t be that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>big of a burden on the routing tables.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>If you don't have facts, then I don't see how your numbers will</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>be significantly different. :)</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>My point was that I can pull numbers from the air too. Posting</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>unsubstantiated statistics do not make statements true. My less</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>than large company (and others that I am familiar with) do not jive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with the numbers that were given.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>>Bottom line is that the RIR's need to operate based on what works </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>>well for the various users of the space. Allocating /24's to every </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>>business that comes along is not in the best interest of the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>>global internet. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>Obviously I disagree. Providers will just have to upgrade their </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>routers. ;) </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Can't upgrade what doesn't exist. </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Who will pay for the 6100 ISP's in North America to "just upgrade"</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>their routers??? Not even talking about the large providers.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>So you are saying that it *is* about economics. A previous message</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from an ARIN member indicated that economics was not their concern.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Perhaps I misinterpreted the comment.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>>So what if we run out of IP addresses. If I can`t get one because it </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>is _reserved_, it may as well be non-existent. Don`t punish me. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>Make policy that gives ARIN teeth to go after wasteful corporations </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>to get unused space back. All of these addresses are currently in </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>the routing tables; aren`t they? Maybe providers should remove </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>these addresses from their tables. That should speed things up </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>>a bit??? </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>Running out and reserved is apples and oranges.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>True for some of the reserved (e.g. RFC1918).</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>No the reserved space is not in the routing table. Only the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>>announced and currently used space is in the table.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I was not referring to the reserved space in reference to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>routing table size. I was talking about the allocated unused space.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Some large companies hold multiple /8-24s but most likely do not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>utilize any of them fully. They may get by with one /16 sub/super</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>netted properly.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>john brown</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Jeff Urmann</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>