[sig-policy] Fwd: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
last week's meeting in Wellington.
Brian is a former chair of the IAB and IETF and Jamie is the VP of
InternetNZ.
I'm forwarding them here.
andy
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [nznog] Prop 94
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:15:56 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail dot com>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: jamie baddeley <jamie.baddeley at vpc dot co dot nz>
CC: nznog at list.waikato dot ac dot nz <nznog at list.waikato dot ac dot nz>
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@list.waikato.ac.nz
>> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog
>
>
_______________________________________________
NZNOG mailing list
NZNOG@list.waikato.ac.nz
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog