[1581] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yakov Rekhter)
Fri Jan 26 17:00:18 1996
To: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>
cc: cidrd@iepg.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Jan 96 13:53:08 MST."
<Pine.LNX.3.91.960126133023.13409B-100000@iMach.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 96 13:38:27 PST
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Forrest,
> This method would have (at least) the following advantages (or
> disadvantages, from your particular viewpoint):
>
> 1) You could reasonably assure that the number of prefixes in an
> /8 would match what was allocated.
>
> 2) Because of 1, if you get the registries to set their
> allocation policies such that no more than 1024 (or the target number)
> blocks are allocated per /8, you can guarantee that the number of
> routes in an /8 is not too far out of wack with the target.
>
> 3) You can give those people moving providers a grace period to renumber,
> say 30 days. Essentially, the time given to clean up the routing
> tables. This would be a side effect of the "you have 30 days to fix
> the routing tables or else".
>
> 4) You eliminate the wasted space of addresses with prefixes longer than
> /18 being allocated.
>
> The only problem this leaves is how to decide who gets an /18...
That is a *very good question*. Different answers to this question
have *quite different* implications on the address space utilization.
Yakov.
