Updated ARIN allocation information

Mark Andrews marka at isc.org
Fri Jan 31 22:01:15 UTC 2014

In message <0A78151E-0FDB-4276-9B14-6A88E2941B2B at istaff.org>, John Curran writes:
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org> wrote:
> > I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other
> > countries and they will fight a similar battles.  Eventually the
> > regulators will step in because it is bad for small businesses to
> > be shut out of the Internet.
> Mark - 
>    ISPS consciously breaking Internet services are bound to attract 
>    regulatory attention, but that does not necessarily mean that in 
>    the end there will be regulatory action.  In the case of peering 
>    and route acceptance, it is fairly easy to show that there is a 
>    finite amount of routes that a given ISP can accept, and each of 
>    these routes has different value (i.e. some have large traffic 
>    flows, some are peer traffic engineering, some of required backup 
>    routes for shared multihomed corporate customers, etc.)
>    The result is not simple to regulate, because you can't just
>    mandate "accept all routes offered" - some ISPs are already 
>    trimming what they accept to accommodate their particular
>    flavor of routing hardware.
>    For last few decades, we've basically been relying on the IP 
>    allocation/assignment policies and their minimum block sizes as 
>    a proxy for the default "worth accepting" metric, but this may not 
>    prevail once there is serious pressure to fragment blocks to obtain 
>    better utilization.  It would be nice if there was a way to fairly 
>    "settle up" for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the 
>    routing table, as this would provide some proportionate backpressure 
>    on growth, would create incentives for deaggregate cleanup, etc.  
>    We don't have such a system, so it falls to each ISP to decide what 
>    route is worth accepting based on type and the offering peer's 
>    business relationship...
> FYI,
> /John

I understand this but this block changes the status quo.  It is a
policy changer.  AFAIK ARIN hasn't done allocations to the /28 level
like this in the past.  This is all new territory.

Concentrating the allocation is a good thing as it allow selective
extentions of the filter lengths. This is about a potential 1.6%
global growth of routes.

It's not 1500% potential growth that a global /24 -> /28 would give.

> Disclaimer: My views alone. Note - I haven't had enable on any
> backbone routers in this _century_, so feel free to
> discount/discard if so desired.  ;-)
Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742			 INTERNET: marka at isc.org

More information about the NANOG mailing list