[31168] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why did we do CIDR? (RE: Confussion over multi-homing)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Thu Sep 14 18:49:18 2000
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:46:31 -0400
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000914184631.A6210@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20000914215007.20899.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>; from Sean Donelan on Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:50:07PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:50:07PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
> If folks are going to deaggregate the addresses and announce multiple routes
> anyway, why are we going through the pain of ARIN policies. Wouldn't it be
> better to allocate the appropriately sized address in the first place?
Yes, it would. It would seem ARIN should allocate small blocks on
a trade-in only policy. You can get a /24, but when you go to a /23 you
_will_ renumber, and soforth up to a /19 or so, at which time when you need
more you get an additional prefix.
That way you limit it to 1 route per ASN for small players, and
everyone can multihome.
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
