On 28 Nov 2004, at 00:28, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
Regardless of how much someone might think that every two-person company deserves provider-independent address space, the unfortunate reality is that this doesn't scale (and the problem is the routing system, not address space scarcity).
If that two-person company is multihomed ( especially with two international providers ) then it occupies just as many prefixes as it would have if it had it's own space. Actually it occupies even more single the provider it got the space from is probably advertising a supernet.
Not quite. An AS which decides to filter on RIR assignment boundaries will still see an organisation which multi-homes using PA space, but will only see one prefix. An organisation which is multi-homed with PI space will introduce an additional prefix to such an AS.
If APNIC is really in the business of saving table entries why don't the chase after people like Otago and Waikato Universities who appear to be singlehomed with a /16 and in Otago's case don't even have/use their own AS number. They should be able to renumber into the /16s belonging to their providers.
APNIC isn't in that business at all. APNIC's business is to manage addresses according to the current policy, and they have no mandate that I know of to insist that the current policy is applied retroactively. APNIC are not even really in the business of setting the policy they follow. The membership does that.
Please explain exactly what New Zealand has to gain out of this exercise apart from reduced stability of it's Internet, extra costs associated with moving providers, barriers to entry for smaller providers and a few hundred thousand per year extra going into funding APNIC?
I don't understand this paragraph. What exercise? Joe