ULA and RIR cost-recovery

Mon Nov 29 18:33:15 UTC 2004

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:09:08AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I will point out, however, that if the boundary moves to /24, there's not
> much difference between the allocation policy of the past that created the
> swamp and current allocation policy.  I'm not saying I think this is a bad
> thing (I don't).  I think that CIDR was important in its day, and, I think
> it is important today.  However, I think that now, CIDR is only important
> in so far as it promotes aggregation where it makes sense.  Deaggregating
> where it matters is a valid and necessary thing.

I think Owen is well aware of the differences, but for the list's
archive...

I think a major difference is that the current policy requires you
to be multihomed.  Another difference is that you have to pay a
maintenance fee.  There are a lot of blocks in the swamp where end
sites received space because they could, and the lack of fees was
a motivator.  There are also a lot of blocks given out to entities
that were then, and are now single homed.

It's also the case that the industry as a whole has progressed.
With ISP's having good processes to give the customers the space
they need, and with technologies like DHCP and the like it is much
easier for many end users to live with IP's from their upstream,
even if they change once in a while.  Couple that with a (very small)
amount of paperwork and fees and you do cut out many of the frivolous
uses.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041129/31056c07/attachment.sig>