[31423] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: exponential route prefix growth, was: Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Fri Sep 22 23:22:37 2000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net>
To: "Aaron Moreau-Cook" <aaronm@toothpick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-Id: <E13cfrr-000JoG-00@rip.psg.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:20:47 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> up getting only one /24. Then another upstream provider, quite large,
> forced another /24 upon us. When we stated we didn't need/want it, they
> said they could take it back but it was not standard practice; all DS3
> customers get a /24. Anyway... Think of all the other companies out there
> who get treated like this?
i would not make the argument that this is good, best practice, beneficial,
...
but i have to whine that it is *very* hard in a large provider to make it
clear to and easy for sales and provisioning folk to adequately determine
what a customer can actually justify (in an rir sense) and provision thusly.
to us it may be obvious that a residential dsl customer might have a bonkers
gadget-crazed geek population that actually warrants a /25 while an oc3
turn-up who insists on a natting firewall only needs a /29. this is very
hard to explain to a normal human being in sales/provisioning who has to do
20-50 of them a day, is underpaid, and who is completely disconnected from
the physics and consequences of address allocation policy.
randy
