Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Verio Peering Question
From: smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)

| While I certainly support the idea of usable micro allocations, and have
| voiced my support on various ARIN mailing lists for it, it should be
| remembered that the same folks who generally espouse restrictive filtering
| policies are also those who voice the greatest opposition to a realistic
| micro allocation policy. Their argument normally underscores the somewhat
| facetious issue of routing table size.

In hopes of correcting this somewhat, let me say that not only
am I a strong supporter of filtering, I have also suggested
fairly seriously to some registry-types that it is fair to allocate
individual /32s as necessary to contain address consumption.

That is, the registries are correctly focusing on that resource-management,
and should spend energies on reclaiming wasted space (hello MIT!)
rather than on managing multiple scarce resources.   ISPs can and
will filter or otherwise penalize users of long and/or flappy prefixes
as dynamicism forces them to do so.   Since filtering can become REALLY
aggressive if and as necessary, nobody should worry that ISPs will
be so overwhelmed that the RIRs have to help out with this problem.

| Ad hominem attacks against individuals [are bad]

But but it's open season on "folks" who make "facetious" arguments?


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]