[35810] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Fri Mar 16 04:22:41 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CDE@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Adam Rothschild' <asr@latency.net>,
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 00:58:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:44 PM
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:20:55PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > ISP specific
>
> ...works reasonably well if you want to multihome w/ BGP, but cannot
> honestly justify a provider-independent IP allocation as per registry
> guidelines, assuming some level of common sense is exercised when
> planning things.
>
> > CIDR swamps are not cool.
>
> Sorry I'm not an authority on what's cool in your book, but why not?
Because you can't change your upstream and keep your net-block. 'tis the
nature of CIDR, non?
BTW, you are SERIOUSLY missing the point. Please pardon my clue-bat.
> > It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market
> > differentiator.
>
> So, encourage the ARIN to offer micro-allocations today, and upstreams
> to listen to /24 (or whatever) and shorter out of this space, if and
> when it does become available. With the backing of MHSC, I'd imagine
> such a task should be effortless.
I was answering the point, that there was no particular advantage between
one IP addr block and another. I was disproving that statement. Please learn
to understand the difference between making a point and advocating a
position. BTW, ARIN is perfectly willing to delegate portable /24's, they
just won't do you any good because of route prefix filtering, at /20 or
greater. This is one clue that you may be missing.
Personally, I think there is a problem, but I'm the first one to admit that
I may not have the ultimate answer. Extending prefixes to /24's may be AN
answer. I wouldn't want to see it longer than that, however. That would be
inefficient. Most sites that I work with are perfectly happy with a /24, but
may not fit in a /25. Mind you, this does NOT include workstations. A /24 is
a good sized data center.
You might also catch the clue that, as folks migrate more to RAIC (Redundant
Array of Inexpensive Computers) configurations, they will swallow more IP
addrs. When I can get a 100 node Linux cluster to do the job of a Sun e6500,
for one-tenth the cost, I'll be more than happy to burn the IP addrs. Now,
try and renumber/test/redeploy that mess in a day, or even a week.
> > BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing
> > evaluations of some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's
> > hosts.
>
> Oh my. I thought all one needed to be stylin' was a low AS number.
> Do tell, which IP blocks are prestigious, and which are not?
Actually, investor folk look at some of that for obvious (to everyone but
you) reasons. Which co-los are being used, as well as how many of them, make
a big statement on robustness. However, too many locations indicate wastage
of funds. It also indicates access to bandwidth and scaleability.
