Sprint's route filters and Europe
Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Mon Jun 3 08:32:54 UTC 1996
> Michael Dillon <michael at memra.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Stan Barber wrote:
> ... appears that some of RIPE's activities may be
> butting heads with Sprint's route filtering policies.
As I have said in this forum before the address allocation policies RIPE
uses are in line with IANA's policies, RFC1466 and the current draft of
RFC1466's successor. The policies are published and regularly discussed
with ISPs in the appropriate fora such as RIPE meetings, NANOG, IETF etc.
The current policy is that the size of the *first* allocation to any new
local registry (ISP) is /19. Of course we will *place* such allocation
such that the possibility for future aggregation is maximised.
These policies are not subject to change based on routing policies set
by a single ISP or a small number of ISPs. Otherwise a single ISP would
in fact be setting the policies. Of course rough consenus among ISPs is
an entirely different matter; however this is not apparent on the
prefix length filtering issue.
> Specifically, RIPE
> is charging a fee to ISP's to get large blocks of IP addresses to allocate
> to their customers
We charge *everyone* for registration services. That is how it should
be. There is no reason why governments (read: taxpayers) should be
footing the bill.
> and yet these blocks are smaller than what Sprint will
*used to be* smaller. At NANOG Sprint announced that their filters will
be /19. This should be implemented "in the next couple of weeks". Also
most of the RIPE NCC's allocations are out of 193/8 and 194/8 which were
never filtered by Sprint.
> I was kind of hoping that someone would pipe up and say that the
> operations folks and the IP registres are now working closer and
> coordinating their activities. Am I dreaming?....
We are working quite closely together indeed.
But sometimes there is no rough consensus.
RIPE NCC Manager
More information about the NANOG