[NAIPR] ARIN Proposal

[Karl Denninger]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:35:00 -0600 (CST), karl at mcs.net writes:
> >
> > [ on renumbering ]
> >
> >But the point is, they shouldn't *HAVE TO* if you change a
> >vendor relationship.
>
> So you've come up with some magical patch to the Cisco IOS and the
> BayRS that will keep MCI and Sprint running as the routing tables grow
> past the 100,000 mark? Unless you have, people will *HAVE TO* renumber
> when they move around. Letting everyone keep their IP addresses when
> vendors are switched will cause the routing table size to skyrocket.

You are MISSING THE POINT.  Please, please read what I have written before
and what is below.  Arguing points that aren't being made is non-productive.

One last time:

NOBODY is arguing for end customers who get assignments in the /32 to /20
range NOW being able to "take them with".

Including me.

HOWEVER, you *MUST* recognize past practice, you *MUST* recognize that
people relied on representations made to them in the past (which are in
fact CODIFIED in RFC2008; there is SPECIFIC language in there reflecting
PAST HISTORY AND PRACTICE), and you *MUST NOT* try to abrogate those past
policies and practices for *EXISTING* assignments.

If you DO attempt any of these things you will create legal causes of action
(if you don't believe me go talk to a real lawyer; I have).  Some of these
are *extremely* serious and will lead to multi-million dollar lawsuits, TROs
and damage claims, and it is NOT in anyone's interest to foster lawsuits.
We do NOT need to do things in policy that will engender legal fights.
It is not in the best interest of the net to do so.  LET'S AGREE NOT TO
DO THOSE THINGS.

RFC2008 recognized this as FACT -- that people HAVE had this represented
to them until recently, and that they have relied on it when building their
businesses.  In fact, the entire reason that 2008 was WRITTEN was to *change
this going forward*.  Fine.  We change it going forward.  But you must
recognize HISTORICAL allocation policies (which 2008 ALSO does) as well.

Finally:

ISPs who intend to multihome MUST have portable space.  Period.  It is
NECESSARY for a multi-homed connection to *WORK AT ALL*.  Further, if EVERY
ISP in the United States had a /19 given to them TODAY it would add some
3,000 or so prefixes to the tables.  This would NOT break the network.  The
HUGE majority of those ISPs will NEVER need more space; this is a ONE TIME
hit.

THE INTERNET WILL NOT BREAK IF WE RECOGNIZE THAT ISPS NEED PORTABLE SPACE.
Again, I am *NOT* arguing that every customer who attaches to the network
should be able to walk around with /24s that they get assigned *TODAY*.
I *AM* saying that if you're in the ISP business, you should get assigned
a /19 initially, and THAT SPACE IS YOURS.  If you need MORE, then justify
that you have ACTUALLY USED the /19 (and it should then be provided).

Finally, Cisco and Bay aren't the only router vendors out there.  Nor is
the state of the art static.  We are testing a device right now that claims
to handle 150,000 prefixes with a recomputation rate of 20 full passes/second;
if this is true then flapping is a non-issue (seriously folks; you can't
really consider a route instability that lasts FIFTY MILLISECONDS to be
significant!)  Further, the architecture of that device should scale easily
to the 500,000 prefix range with ~5-10 recomputations per second; this is
STILL an instability boundary of ~200ms at worst, which is some two to three
orders of magnitude better than ANYTHING that CISCO or Bay make right now.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
                             | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal