Hi Brian, I don't think the proposal at this point is too bad. Happy to be persuaded otherwise. If someone is prepared to make the leap into a /22 then 20% of what's remaining in the existing upstream allocation is not a massive amount of space. How many assignments happen from upstream to downstream that is greater than a /22? We're expecting everyone who takes the global routing table to be (or have been) busy upgrading to v4/v6 dual stack and I presume as a consequence they have nice shiny routers with lots of mem/cpu etc. Therefore the number of prefixes in the GRT is much less a concern these days right? jamie On 28/01/2011, at 3:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The APNIC policy proposal 94 allows an operator to put in for new IPv4 space without having to renumber, if they can show that they've used 80% of the space already obtained from their upstream.
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-094
That seems bad in two ways
1. It allows 19.99% of IPv4 space to be hoarded.
2. It probably encourages disaggregation, compared with renumbering into this new block.
Brian
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog