Re: NZGATE addressing within NZ
Hi.
It would be useful to know what size blocks the major US backbone providers see as viable entries. Currently they will accept a /24 but I've seen numbers like /18 or /19 bandied around in the past as the size of blocks that will be routable on the backbone for the forseeable future. (I recall Sprint for example saying that they would support blocks of this size.)
Well Sprint only accepts /24 in historical ranges (to which the NZGATE addresses belong). Current practice seems to be to filter at the minimum allocation size for the /8's. For all new and assignments in the recent past this seems to be /19 (from all registries), for older addresses this was /24. Because of the dramatic slowdown in router table growth, there doesn't seem to be any forseeable technical reason to have to alter current practice. Should growth threaten to become unmanagable, increasing the minimum allocation size to /18 or /17 could slow growth, without having to attempt to retroactively assume a new minimum allocation size. It's difficult to retroactively try to filter out routes shorter than the minimum allocation size at the time they were issued as this results in cutting onself off from too much of the Internet. And so for commercial reasons this has not happened (except perhaps briefly) and cannot be reasonably expected to happen. I cannot find information at APNIC for what they consider to be the minimum allocation sizes for 202/8 nor 203/8 -- something we should find out and (attempt to) correct if desirable/necessary. -Craig --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
craig(a)laptop.iprolink.co.nz (Craig Anderson) writes:
Well Sprint only accepts /24 in historical ranges (to which the NZGATE addresses belong). Current practice seems to be to filter at the minimum allocation size for the /8's. For all new and assignments in the recent past this seems to be /19 (from all registries), for older addresses this was /24.
This was my understanding as well -- for NZ, pretty much anything down to a class C in 192/8 or 202/8 is basically portable. Experience has show that to be true in practice as well -- I certainly haven't heard of anyone having to renumber such an address for technical reasons. The issue seems to come down to what exactly the conditions the NZGATE blocks had imposed on them. I don't recall John Houlker or his underlings ever communicating to me or anyone else that the addresses obtained through NZGATE were anything but portable; rather, the position stated quite explicitly to me was that NZGATE was simply front-ending normal APNIC requests for no other reason than that it meant that the NZGATE folks knew what was going on, and therefore could take steps to get the new address space routed as soon as it was allocated. No change in that arrangement was ever communicated to me while I was at NetLink, at least until NetGate was split off, by which time NetLink (along with most ISPs) had its own /18 block in 203 (later extended to /17) via John H's confederation. I'd therefore contend that the IP addresses assigned to NetLink by NZGATE "belong" to no-one other than the original registrant. (NetLink policy at the time was to apply for numbers on behalf of the customer; the numbers were therefore the "property" of the customer, not NetLink, and not NZGATE.) Obviously, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would have thought that the same applied to any address space obtained from NZGATE prior to its handing over to Telecom in early 1996. -- don Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog
participants (2)
-
craig＠laptop.iprolink.co.nz -
Don Stokes