Independent space from ARIN

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Sun Apr 13 21:22:52 UTC 2003


On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 jlewis at lewis.org wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 13 Apr 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> > Please explain how somebody with more than 4096 hosts in PA space is
> > supposed to renumber into a /20 of PI space.
> > 
> > I fear you propose that he move the first 3276.8 hosts, request a second
> > block, move another 3276.8 hosts, request a third block, etc. until he's got
> > a dozen new allocations which can't be aggregated.  Perhaps this explains
> > the explosive growth in the routing tables since ARIN took over.
> 
> Perhaps the poster who mentioned they didn't get enough space to renumber 
> should have started, filled the allocation, requested another, and 
> finished the renumbering.  In your request, did you mention any sort of 
> projected timeline for renumbering into the block you requested?
> 
> Maybe someone should write an update for rfc2050.  Depending on which IP
> analyst your request is handled by, rfc2050 may be invoked, which states:
> 
>        Additional address allocations will provide enough address space
>        to enable the ISP to assign addresses for three months
>        without requesting additional address space from its parent
>        registry.  Please note that projected customer base has little
>        impact on the address allocations made by the parent registries.
> 
> I don't know anyone who's actually followed this, but I haven't
> communicated with many ARIN members about this sort of thing lately.  Is
> this policy being enforced consistently now?  I know in the past, ARIN has
> had their own policies (at least for initial and at one time for second
> allocations) that pretty much ignored this.  Once upon a time, you could 
> request a /20 from a reserved /19 as long as you were multi-homed and 
> could justify a /21.  Fill the first /20 in 18 months or less, and you get 
> the other half, and have a /19.  I think the rationale for this at the 
> time was routing filters, as you were allowed to announce the /19 even 
> before the second half of it was officially yours.  Now, the ARIN tune 
> seems to be "we only assign numbers, routability is your problem".
> 
> I don't claim to have an easy solution for this.  If every idiot with a
> business plan could request and receive a /16, there'd be an awful lot of
> wasted space.  But if you've been around for most of the past decade and
> have continued to grow, should you really be issued new non-agregable
> blocks every several months?
> 
> Somebody must have a better idea.

the way the registries handle it is better than rfc2050 tho surely? i mean they 
are encouraging folks to announce fewer routes by exceeding their requirement 
and its the routing table size we're more concerned about

i thought the panic about wasted space had passed since people noticed we're 
only using a small chunk of the available space (post cidr)

Steve





More information about the NANOG mailing list