<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jul 30, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>In a message written on Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 05:48:06PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">If I may draw it back to the question I started with: Can you offer a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">well grounded reason to believe that changing the minimum allocation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">size for *multihomed* systems is likely to affect the size of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">global table?<br></blockquote><br>I believe it is reasonable to assume each decrease in prefix size<br>allows more orgs to qualify, and thus increases the routing table.<br>Now it may be we only add 1000 orgs, of which 800 previously were<br>multi-homing with cutouts, so the net is 200 routes, but that doesn't<br>mean it's not a decrease.<br><br></div></blockquote>I don't get this...</div><div><br></div><div>Under current policy, any org that multihomes qualifies for a /24 from their</div><div>upstream.</div><div><br></div><div>Given that, any org that multihomes already qualifies to put a route in the</div><div>DFZ.</div><div><br></div><div>What increase are you concerned about that is added by moving the ARIN</div><div>boundary from /22 to /24?</div><div><br></div><div>Today, they can save $100/year and get space from an upstream that</div><div>they don't pay ARIN for, as well as getting a /24 even if they want to</div><div>multihome a single host. That's CURRENT ARIN policy.</div><div><br></div><div>If we move the boundary to /24, then, in addition to that option, networks</div><div>that have ~128 - ~400 hosts would gain the option of applying to ARIN</div><div>and getting a /24 or /23 to multihome with that was independent of</div><div>both of their providers.</div><div><br></div><div>Why would someone who is not willing to multihome for $100 less</div><div>pay $100 more to multihome _AND_ jump through more hoops just</div><div>because we changed the ARIN boundary?</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>Personally I believe if an org can demonstrate it has multi-homed<br>BGP connectivity (tunnels don't count, etc) they should probably<br>be able to get a prefix from ARIN. However, even with that belief I<br>don't support any drastic moves in the prefix size, worried there is<br>some tipping point out there where the balance changes radically.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Given we are at /22 and there are only 10 bits left... Please define</div><div>drastic in that context. Is the 2 bits being discussed drastic?</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>