[41169] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Nielsen)
Thu Aug 30 15:19:22 2001
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:16:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen@nielsen.net>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20010830121205.03b83d30@nastg.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0108301212360.12647-100000@moench.nielsen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> >Should there be a limit of 1 of these assignments made per 'entity', with
> >renumbering occurring if further address space is required ?
>
> For clarification, the current proposal did not specify any limitation
> on the number of such assignments.
>
> What would be the motivation for this?
I would say, to keep the tables from growing. Either have them renumber
into another 'larger' space or allow them to grow into a larger space.
micro allocations are a good thing (tm) if they are done right.
> >If so should we consider reserving the next larger block for a period of
> >time, to account for possible growth ?
>
> No reservations will be made. It is generally assumed that applicants
> will be paying a one-off service fee, rather than an ongoing
> membership based fee. This is in fact identical to the way that PI
> assignments can currently be obtained. The proposal restricts the
> assignments to (about to be) multihomed orgs.
ok, if this is the case, have them renumber to keep the number of
announcements down.
> >Should 'small multi-homing' assignments be made from a specific (defined)
> >netblock ?
>
> I think there is a choice here. We can use "swamp" space, found mostly
> in 202/8 which by definition does not contain large ranges of address
> space, or we can take a range from the less "swampy" space ie. 218/8
> and use that. My feeling is that it would be better to use the 202/8
> range.
right. but what ever space is used, publish it so those of us that have
filters can adjust for it. :)
