[1669] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Mon Jan 29 10:56:16 1996
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@unix1.bart.nl>
To: amb@xara.net (Alex.Bligh)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 16:50:34 +0100 (MET)
Cc: Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, amb@xara.net, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org,
iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <199601291109.LAA00338@diamond.xara.net> from "Alex.Bligh" at Jan 29, 96 11:09:20 am
> to me and says 'I want to go multihomed with you as a second provider,
> currently I have 8 class C's but they are all spread about the
> place'. Me 'You need to renumber then esp. as your class C's are
> within your current providers aggregate announcments (even though
> they are old, and thus technically PI' (there, that's me doing my
> bit for aggregation). Them: 'OK, give us a /21 to renumber into,
> you are a local-IR and we aren't'. Currently I have 2 choices as
> far as I can make out, give them a bit of my /19, break up my
> nice aggregate and ensure loads of extra announcements (and that
> probably none of them get routed by anyone applying prefix based
> filtering), or give them a new /19 all of their own (you've
> said it, that's the minimum size allocation) which actually
> solves their problem and mine, but this isn't an option
> currently available because currently it's one window per local-IR.
> So they have to go and become a local IR.
No they don't. You can ask the RIPE NCC for special PI space to assign to
this customer. It seems they have a "chemical waste dump" to satisfy
this kind of requests from.
