[31173] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why did we do CIDR? (RE: Confussion over multi-homing)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brad)
Fri Sep 15 01:33:49 2000
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 23:30:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: Brad <brad@americanisp.net>
To: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000914184631.A6210@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0009142324400.1349-100000@oxygen.americanisp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:46:31 -0400
> From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Why did we do CIDR? (RE: Confussion over multi-homing)
>
>
> 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.
One route per AS would be nice, however, renumbering every
time additional space is required is just not possible in
some cases.
It seems every time I turn around, I find myself requesting
more address space, and according to ARIN policies,
demand=supply (ie, if you can prove you have a need for it,
you will get it).
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
---
Brad
brad@americanisp.net
