[9989] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NSP ... New Information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Germann)
Tue Jun 10 15:05:52 1997
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:52:12 -0400
To: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
From: Eric Germann <ekgermann@cctec.com>
Cc: Phil Howard <phil@charon.milepost.com>, nanog@merit.edu
The really annoying part of the whole "/19 or you are screwed" policy
with respect to routability is the hoops the little guy has to go through
to get address space. As has been quoted here earlier in this thread,
Internic claims you need 100% utilization off the bat. However, none of
the big guys seem to play by the rules for rational allocations.
I have a client connected to MCI. They have five divisions on one
campus. They have been allocated 5 class C's by MCI. They need exactly
four addresses, one for the mailgate, one for the proxy, one for the Web
server and one for the the router for each division. So their
utilization is 4/256 or 1.5625%. Responsible allocation?
I have a colleague who wanted dial on demand LAN routing. PSI offers it.
He has a 2 node + router LAN. One for the router and one for each PC.
Guess what he gets? A Class C. 3/256 or 1.17% utilization. Their
reasoning, and I quote: "Its just easier for us to set up that way."
Why doesn't Internic go back and pick on the big guys and start yanking
their addresses. <underline>I'm all for conservation, universally
applied.</underline> Ironic that the big guys waste the space and then
filter the routes of the little guys who give their first three children
to Internic to get PIA, isn't it.
At 11:19 AM 6/10/97 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>At 09:22 AM 06/10/97 -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
>
>>
>>Right. But people see it as such a problem because the routing
policies
>>are IP space derived. When people are told they need a /19 to be
routable,
>>then they begin to go backwards on solving the IP space problem and
resume
>>wasting it (but hiding the waste to look like its used).
>>
>
>But this is somewhat of a misnomer. It is not an issue of being
>'routable' v. 'non-routable', but rather, one of whether you can
>be aggregated into a larger prefix. This practice encourages
>aggregation -- it is commonly agreed that Aggregation is Good (tm).
>
>The routability issue comes into play when:
>
> o You are specifically referring to routes being propagated by
> a service provider who uses prefix-length filters, AND
>
> o You cannot be aggregated into a large enough advertised CIDR
> block to conform to these types of filters.
>
>
>>When the need to justify space usage occurred, along with it came some
ideas
>>on actually how to do that. And I see that working. We were projected
to
>>run totally out of space by now, and since we have not, I assume it did
work
>>pretty well.
>>
>
>BGP4, CIDR, or Die.
>
>>But the real problem is routing policies that are encouraging people to
go
>>back to wasting space. By using the network size as the criteria for
doing
>>route filtering, the smaller guys get screwed and they see their
solution
>>as inflating their network. This practice needs to be stopped or a
better
>>solution needs to come out of it.
>>
>
>One might suggest that some of the prefix length filter could be
>replaced by more aggressive dampening policies.
>
>- paul
>
>
>
