On 2011-01-29 15:49, jamie baddeley wrote:
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?
Yes, certainly this isn't a disaster, but why set the level at 80% occupied? 90% would halve the amount of potentially wasted or hoarded space.
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?
Well, routers have kept up with growth because CIDR has been a great success over the last 15+ years, and this seems like a step back: 2 prefixes instead of one for every operator who uses this policy and has multihomed transit. There's a significant risk of IPv4 disaggregation for many reasons during the coming address space end game, so I think we need to be watchful. As an author of RFC 5887, I fully realise that asking operators to renumber is a hard ask. So the effect of this change will actually be to nullify the renumbering requirement completely - why would any operator take that pain voluntarily? Brian
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