Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verio Peering Question
From: Jeff Mcadams <jeffm () iglou com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:35:33 -0400


Also sprach Sean M. Doran
I have also suggested fairly seriously to some registry-types that it
is fair to allocate individual /32s as necessary to contain address
consumption.

Praise the Lord!  I'm not alone in this.  I've always thought
prefix-length filtering was incredibly inane.

Since the length of the prefix bears little correlation to the
"importance" of the network being advertised, there is little reason to
filter based on the length of the prefix.

Filter flapping routes?  Sure.  Filter RFC1918 space?  No brainer.
Filtering on prefix length?  There's just no solidly backed up reasoning
to support it that I've heard.  A network that has the operational need
to be multi-homed will add a route to the default-free area, its as
simple as that (barring some major architectural changes to the
protocols in use on the Internet.)  If we're going to have the routes in
the default-free, let's at least try to minimize.  Encourage
re-numbering into fewer blocks and returning those blocks to ARIN?

Here's a thought.  When you give out a new block of IP addresses to an
organization, require that, within a certain time period (a year?) they
relinquish two blocks back to ARIN.  Obviously there is going to be a
limit to how far you can go with this...if the organiztion only has a
single block, then it can't turn two in if its allocated a new block
since that would leave it with no space.  A policy like this (and this
is obviously *extremely* rough) would have the effect of encouraging
re-numbering, and designing networks in ways that renumbering isn't
quite as onerous, it would also reduce the number of blocks being
advertised by the organization.  IgLou, for example, has 6 blocks that
we advertise...we're pretty much small fry, but it would not be all that
difficult for me to free up several of my blocks for relinquishing back
to ARIN.  Now, IgLou obviously isn't going to have a huge effect on
reducing routing table size, but over time, this would reduce the number
of routes in the default-free zone...or at least keep the growth in
check.  The trick is that a network needs to be able to obtain network
blocks that are reasonably sized for their needs with little to no
hassle.  There are all sorts of variations on this policy theme that
could be used to balance the needs of the Internet as a whole.

The bottom line, though, is that the current policies in use don't
address the problems that it is claimed that they were instituted to
address...primarily address depletion and routing table size.
-- 
Jeff McAdams                            Email: jeffm () iglou com
Head Network Administrator              Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services                        (800) 436-4456


  By Date           By Thread  

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