Sprint violations (setting space aside for slow-start allocations)

Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Fri Sep 22 08:32:23 UTC 1995

  > Sean Doran <smd at icp.net> writes:
  >    Slow-start is a good idea, and we have the RIPE /19 
  > legacy to prove it.  

It is not legacy.  We are using it in 193/8 and 194/8 and currently we
do not intend to do differently in any new /8 we might start.  /18 is
just too much of an allocation for a garage with a couple of <your
favourite modem hub>.  We cannot and will not refuse to allocate address
space to such garages until someone comes up with a *resonable* policy
of what is an eligible garage.  I can understand that some sugest that a
reasonable policy is to require connections to a at least two <major
transit provider>, but I postulate that <major transit provider> can
never be defined in a rasonable way. 

So please define which garages shall be eligible for an allocation
and get the RIPE community to agree. Mind this is easier than the 
Internet community.

Folks: Here is an issue!!!! 

  > Now we need to look at whether this
  > can be done with /18s without exhausting IPv4 too soon,
  > as there are some real concerns about doubling the maximum
  > number of prefixes many routers will see.

My experience tells me that it is too big. We are not doing slow start 
long enough however to quantify that.

  > | So how about agreeing on pools of address space for small allocations?
  > I think you found a good topic!

Check out ripe-127.


More information about the NANOG mailing list