[43261] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Wed Oct 3 04:45:38 2001
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:44:47 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Jeff Mcadams <jeffm@iglou.com>, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <170602889.1002102286@[195.224.237.69]>
In-Reply-To: <20011002220839.A14440@iglou.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Jeff,
>> Those who propose filtering a la Verio / Sprint(passim) suggest that
>> your incentive to renumber is that certain other (not in the line of
>> transit) networks will not accept these prefixes (or apply more
>> stringent dampening on them), and hence give you inferior routing
>> either permanently (filtering) or temporarilly (dampening), assuming
>> you have a covering netblock.
>
> But that's not an incentive to renumber at all, because I can't go to
> ARIN and say, "I want to renumber out of these disparate blocks and get
> one big one that is more globally routable." So renumbering out of the
> block that I'm thinking of (204.252.74/24, FWIW) still doesn't do me any
> good.
Well, I'm more familiar with RIPE than ARIN, but if you are saying
'If I were to apply for a /x anew, ARIN would give it to me, but
as I already have a /a, a /b, a /c, ARIN won't let me return them,
and renumber into a /x' I'd suggest that policy needs looking at,
for exactly the reasons you suggest.
I /do/ know of instances where companies have (say) an old /16,
severely underutilized, and want to get more space for some reason,
offer to return their old space, but insist on getting at least a
/19 (or similar) on the grounds of routability, even though if
they made the application afresh they'd get at most (say) a /22.
Hard one to call that.
--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
