Updated ARIN allocation information
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...
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