too many routes

Jeff Williams jwkckid1 at
Tue Sep 9 16:11:46 UTC 1997


Michael Dillon wrote:
> >We are at a point that we can pretty much nearly fill a /19 and will be
> >past that point by the end of the year.  Beyond that, I would think that
> >when we need to keep coming back for address space, we would do it in
> >increments of /19.
> The problem is that although you know your goals and you also know that you
> WILL reach your goals, there are other companies out there with wildly
> inflated goals that will never even come close to reaching them. The
> registry folks have to cut through the bullshit and try to avoid delegating
> space to companies who don't really need the space and will never use it.

  Well if there were reasonable paramaters set, determining weather or
not the requests for allocations would be reasonable.  RFC 2050 is 
insuficient for this perpose, yet is the backdrop or primary document
that NAPIR is using as a guideline.  Bad policy.
> >I'm wondering if the policies are not being counter productive due to the
> >apparently opposing nature of IP space vs route space (e.g. the one where
> >people have to take more IP space to be routed, because of route filters,
> >because of too many routes, because IP space is so fragmented, because IP
> >space needs to be conserved, because everyone needs to get more IP space,
> >becayse of route filtering, because of so many routes, because ...).
> You are quite right, it's a tricky balancing act. And many of us do believe
> that the right balance has not been struck yet and that allocation policies
> need to be modified a bit to accomodate the current realities.

  A bit!  That is an understatment at best.
> >I was given some other mailing lists for dealing with those issues by someone.
> >I'll be subscribing there.
> Hopefully the NAIPR list was one of them because that is where the new
> policies will likely be hashed out. Send a subscribe message to
> naipr-request at and before posting anything, review the background
> material at including the list archives. At ISPCON 3
> weeks ago, Kim Hubbard announced that 50 organizations had already applied
> for ARIN membership.

  Yep.  And this announcment is premature until some of the allocation
pollicies are better worked out.
> >Or is this listed on a web page?  If not, I'll offer to host just such a
> >web page if I can get a pretty much complete list (I'll even write HTML to
> >get it going).  But I'm sure most everyone here has some access to some
> >web space somewhere.
> I think that the ISP info pages hosted at already has
> a pretty good collection of pointers to mailing lists.
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon                    voice: +1-650-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect            fax: +1-650-482-2844
> "The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at

More information about the NANOG mailing list