when & how could policy be changed

[Jeremy Porter]

In message <3.0.2.32.19970701222650.00df2da8 at priori.net>, "Justin W. Newton" wr
ites:
>
>>of a net reduction in table size, but this assumes that these small
>>customers would be allowed to de-aggregated from their PA space,
>>which in a large number of cases is contractlly disallowed currently.
>>So I still don't see a net reduction.
>
>Uhm, who contractually disallows that?  I.e. if I have provider A space and
>a provider B connection in addition to my provider A connection, both would
>have to announce the block which provider A allocated to me, specifically,
>or it would be /impossible/ to use both lines at the same time.

Standard MCI and Sprint contract disallow use of no PA assigned space.
I'm not saying this can't be negoitated, but the standard contracts
do state this.

>>
>>I'd like to seem some real world numbers based on multihomed ASs
>>announcing /20s or smaller that aren't aggregated currently.
>
>You're taking full routes aren't you? :)  (I'm not at the moment, or I
>would do it.  There are a few other things I want to do with a BGP dump
>anyway).  If anyone is willing to make a dump available to me for ftp I
>would be greatly appreciative.

We've got full routes from several sources, I'll setup a dump later today
and make that available.

>>>You're ignoring the important minority here: servers. 
>>
>>I don't seem renumbering serves as a very difficult challenge.
>>I've renumber servers on 3 networks, two of them being regional ISPs,
>>and it just isn't that hard.  (Hint IP aliasing makes it much less painful).
>
>Having been involved in all of the discussions at Erol's as to their
>renumbering plan (they are renumbering out of their original PA space at
>the moment), the one thing that is a real nightmare for ISPs to renumber is
>name servers.  I really do not envy their position in telling 200k users to
>go into their settings and change their DNS server IP's.

But, PPP/DHCP should be able to assign the DNS for the Win95/Mac customers
automatically, plus the use of NATs means that the transition can happen
seamlessly.  We don't even tell users what the name servers are any
more, unless they really need it.  We've moved our name servers 3
times now from a UUnet block, to a Net99 block, to our PI space.
We will probably return the PA space well before all customers are renumbered,
but at least we won't have to punch holes in someone elses blocks.

The name server issue is in two parts:
customer name resolution:  these addresses don't even have to be announced
outside dns resolution:  These need to be assigned, but by changing the
host record and IP aliasing the addressing, and being very dilligent
about excess glue records this can be done seamlessly.

>*********************************************************
>Justin W. Newton                  voice: +1-415-482-2840 	
>Senior Network Architect            fax: +1-415-482-2844
>PRIORI NETWORKS, INC.              http://www.priori.net
>Director At Large, ISP/C           http://www.ispc.org
>"The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
>*********************************************************
>

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  |  1-800-968-8750  |  512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net