RE: [apnic-talk] Questions on microallocation assignment policy
> >Are companies with existing historically assigned address
> space eligible for
> >additional space via the small multi-homing assignment policy ?
>
>
> I would be interested to hear reasons why this would be the
> case - assuming
> that your reference to "historically assigned address space"
> refers to PI
> space.
Yes I was referring to PI space.
As I understand it, the intent of the proposal is to allow companies without
resources to multi-home, access to resources to multi-home. A company with
existing PI address space already has these resources.
Should this be a case for the 'no questions asked' stick ?
> >Should there be a limit of 1 of these assignments made per
> 'entity', with
> >renumbering occurring if further address space is required ?
> >
> >If so should we consider reserving the next larger block for
> a period of
> >time, to account for possible growth ?
>
> Maybe you did not mean it that way, but if renumber is
> required for further
> allocation of PI space, then there is no need to perform such a
> reservation. The reservation would infer that there would be
> no need to
> renumber.
I meant, if renumbering is required, rather than having renumbering occur
the next time additional space is required, reserve the next larger block.
After this has been assigned, then renumbering would have to occur. Bang for
buck wise its unlikely to be worth it.
> My reaction to the proposal was an assumption that this was a single
> allocation, and if the entity expands, then it would be reasonable to
> rehome them into the 'normal' process and do the PI /20 allocation.
Not really, if someone requires an initial /24, they may have requirements
for an additional /24 later. In these cases it would be unreasonable to move
them into a /20.
This is probably not that much of an issues, I'd guess most people willing
to outlay the kinda dollars required for a micro-assignment will not be dial
ISP with an overactive appetite for address space and may only require their
initial request.
> Existing observations on the transit of /24 and /23 blocks within the
> current BGP system tend to indicate that the use of such prefixes is
> already widespread, and its not clear that further
> encouragement could make
> the issue any worse! :-)
I would disagree, the number of allocations seen as individual /24 but also
have a covering aggregate shows people are concerned about the reachability
of the de-aggregated netblocks, otherwise why bother with the aggregate ?
Its not always traffic engineering.
If the people with the filter mallet follow the RIR guidelines and filter at
the minimum allocation /24 it sends a clear message, there is no (obvious)
impact or reason to be concerned about aggregation. There is still a great
fear in smaller provider land that /24's PI or PA are not (entirely)
globally visible, take this concern away and you'll see a decrease in
aggregation.
> It is perhaps of greater longer term value to look at how to place
> understandable and useful scoping limits on fine-grained prefix
> advertisements, rather than bash away with the heavy-touch
> prefix filter
> mallet.
Tell that to the people with the mallet ;-)
> Geoff Huston
--
James
This Email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above and may contain information that is confidential and
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
Email is strictly prohibited. Before opening or using attachments,
check them for viruses and defects.
If you have received this Email in error, please notify us
immediately by return email or telephone +61 2 8220 6000 and
destroy the original message. Thank You.
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *