[1511] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Forrest W. Christian)
Wed Jan 24 22:04:19 1996
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:52:35 -0700 (MST)
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>
To: postel@isi.edu
cc: nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@IEPG.ORG, iepg@IEPG.ORG, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu,
iana@isi.edu, netreg@internic.net, ncc@ripe.net, hostmaster@apnic.net
In-Reply-To: <199601242346.AA20736@zen.isi.edu>
Thanks for bringing this subject up.
I am VP of Technical Operations for a Internet Provider Located in
Montana.
Currently, we're assigning addresses out of a Single /18 block which we
ended up with by agreeing to return the equivalent of an /18 and a /20
block plus a few other addresses to their "origin" registries. However,
I'm not too optimistic about getting another /18 when we exaust this
one. Let me explain the dilemma by making a few points:
1) As good net-citizens and in a desire to reduce the size of the
internet routing tables, we reqire customers to use IP numbers out of our
block. We are also requiring all of our existing customers to renumber
into our block by August of 1996. This will reduce the number of routes
we announce to the world from 8 down to 1.
2) Again as good net-citizens, we assign address blocks based upon need.
We require firm knowledge of the size and type of the network to assign a
block with a prefix shorter than /29. We require a written netplan for
anything shorter than a /27.
3) We are currently testing dynamic IP allocation, and will, starting
around Feb 15, not be handing out static IP's to our dialup customers
without specific reasons being given by the customer for Static IP.
(we've been static up to this point, with less than 200 dialup customers).
4) As a result of the above measures, we've decreased the amount of
address space used significantly. As a result, our /18 block will likely
last until approximately the Beginning of 1997.
5) We're going to be multihomed by the end of February.
5) When we go to get our new /18 block sometime in 1997, We're going to
be asked why we need an /18 block. I'm going to have to try to convince
the internic that the /18 block is necessary as a longer prefix isn't
routable, and that we deserve to get a year or two's worth of allocation
up front because of how tightly our existing block is packed.
The solutions, the way I see them:
1) Don't pack them so tight. Hmm.. This one here that I've allocated a
/28 to could probably use a /25, and this /27, yeah that could be given a
/24 or even a /23. I could just claim ignorance and promise to do
better. I could have this /18 used in no time.
2) Convince the big ISP's to permit prefixes longer than /18 in the
routing tables.
3) Convince the internic to give me the block somehow. Although it
appears that the issue of size vs time till use will override such items
as we won't be able to get a block which we can use in a multihoming
configuration.
Unfortunately # 1 appears to be the most likely candidate at this time.
However, I do NOT intend to allocate space that loosely, and I REFUSE to
do so.
I guess we'll see what happens in about a year.
forrestc@imach.com
On Wed, 24 Jan 1996 postel@ISI.EDU wrote:
>
>
> Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Regional Internet Registries (APNIC, InterNIC, RIPE NCC) refer
> organizations requesting IP address space to their Internet service
> providers (ISPs). This is done for various reasons, the main reason
> being that IP addresses need to be assigned heirarchically to allow
> aggregation of routing information (CIDR). Customers are warned of
> possible routing restrictions if addresses are not received from an
> ISP's CIDR block. Since some ISPs are presently restricting the length
> of prefixes they route, it is even more important for end users to
> receive IP addresses from their Internet service provider.
>
> Regional Internet registries have no control over the routing policies
> of any ISP. The IANA has instructed the Internet registries not to
> assign IP addresses based on any ISP's particular routing policy, rather
> on specific criteria including utilization efficiency. An organization
> will be assigned the number of IP addresses it can justify. If this
> number is not fully routable, that is an issue that should be taken up
> with the ISP(s) concerned.
>
> Regional Internet Registries inform ISPs about allocation and assignment
> policies. This enables ISPs to take these policies into account when
> setting their routing policies.
>
> s/ IANA, Internic, RIPE-NCC, AP-NIC.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
