Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
kozowski at structured.net
Sat Jan 27 01:41:28 UTC 1996
>If you convince the registries to allocate no longer prefix than an /18
>or a mix of lengths up to say /19 or /20 (such that no more than 1000ish
>are allocated) to ISP's or multihomed companies, and then require that
>the announcement must match the allocated block, you can guarantee that
>the routing table will not exceed the 1024 per /8.
>Then, some of you will ask how to enforce this. Once every so often, you
>dump the BGP routing tables from strategic routers. If you see any
>non-matching prefixes, you send an email to the network coordinator for
>the allocated block giving them a set amount of time to clean it up. Any
>routes which are not cleaned up by the deadline are added to a filter
>list which could be carried on routers.
>This method would have (at least) the following advantages (or
>disadvantages, from your particular viewpoint):
> 1) You could reasonably assure that the number of prefixes in an
> /8 would match what was allocated.
> 2) Because of 1, if you get the registries to set their
> allocation policies such that no more than 1024 (or the target number)
> blocks are allocated per /8, you can guarantee that the number of
> routes in an /8 is not too far out of wack with the target.
> 3) You can give those people moving providers a grace period to renumber,
> say 30 days. Essentially, the time given to clean up the routing
> tables. This would be a side effect of the "you have 30 days to fix
> the routing tables or else".
> 4) You eliminate the wasted space of addresses with prefixes longer than
> /18 being allocated.
An excellent, well thought out proposal. I like it.
Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
kozowski at structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
(503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
(800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
More information about the NANOG