If small ISPs threw out their NATs, they'd be able to justify a /21
allocation very easily.
Why are we worried about saving IP resources when APNIC (and the other
RIRs) have a huge amount of IPv6 address space just waiting to be
distributed? ;-)
Disadvantage:
- No disadvantage to anybody.
This is a joke, isn't it? Either that or it displays a stunning naivety
of the Internet Routing system as it stands today.
There are numerous disadvantages:
- Internet Routing table bloat gets even larger (which it undoubtedly
will do as the market for IPv4 address space comes into being around the
time the RIRs have no more IPv4 resources to distribute).
- ISPs will have to spend more money with their favourite router vendors
if they want to multihome or participate in the default free zone (see
below).
- the quantity and frequency of BGP updates undoubtedly will increase
faster than they currently are increasing, as more and more smaller ISPs
contribute more and more smaller prefixes to the Internet routing
system. ISPs will have to buy bigger route processors sooner than they
expected.
- the greater number of prefixes means that some of the global carriers
may start filtering these small allocations, simply to protect their
routers and backbone integrity. So having an allocation will mean very
little as it won't be routable beyond the network neighbourhood.
There is another advantage:
- the router vendors make more money selling unplanned router upgrades
to ISPs around the world. Speaking briefly as an employee of one vendor,
this makes me happy.
In summary, while the proposal may be considered to solve a problem in
India, it has dire implications for the rest of the Internet. If it
results in India's /24 ISP members being filtered by the rest of the
world, what exactly will we have solved here?
- Effect on APNIC members
A lot of new smaller members will join APNIC.
Why wasn't this listed as an advantage?
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
It will have an effect. APNIC will then have a /24 minimum allocation,
which the NIRs will then have to consider implementing for their
membership too.
Hopefully the author will consider revising the proposal with the
suggestions above.
Best wishes!
philip
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com
VirusFree, Spamfree, power packed
email service thru cjnet4u.com