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