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
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
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
If you're keen to follow the full discussion on this proposal and the other proposals in front of the APNIC Policy SIG in late February you can see them all at http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals and you can join the mailing list at http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy Some of these if passed (and it's not a foregone conclusion that all or any will be passed) will have an effect on how people on this list apply for IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in the future. I'm guessing that we're going to see us move into the last phase of IPv4 delegation really soon. See http://xn--kjvq5ah3lmt6a.com/ so this APNIC meeting will be of critical importance in setting the agenda. Your comments (constructive of course) on the Policy SIG list can have a significant effect.
participants (3)
-
Andy Linton -
Brian E Carpenter -
jamie baddeley