- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

---------- From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 11:32 PM To: Jim Fleming Cc: 'NANOG List' Subject: Re: Allocation of IP Addresses [CC's edited] >How much attention is paid to how blocks are being used...??? ISPs must now show 75-80% utilization of existing address space prior to allocation of new address space. Of course some sub-netting can be very wasteful and is one way for ISPs to "look good" to get more addresses... >Why doesn't the Internic require that Class A delegates, use those >addresses rather than addresses from other parts of the spectrum...??? To my knowledge they do. Note that this is a relatively recent policy shift. I do know ISPs with class As have been refused new allocations until they can dmonstrate they have utilized 70-80% of their class A, however it is easy to hide that you are from an organization with existing space. And of course there are always the "subjective" decisions that the Internic gets to make based on almost zero knowledge... >For example, why are name servers allowed in 192 and 204...as shown >below...??? It would be easy for the Internic to have a policy that >does not allow the foll owing... There are many such examples (IBM, PSI, BBN, etc). However, I do not believe there have been new allocations to these organizations in the recent past. And of course it is hard to tell...is TALIGENT.COM still in business....??? >Should companies be given recognition for "Internet Ecology" efforts...??? >Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) You are basing too much on what companies use for their DNS. HP has lots of other address space as well. Regards, -drc OK....I guess HP does not get the "Internet Ecology" award...:-) Jim Fleming Naperville, IL

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

At 11:49 AM 3/14/96 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote: >>Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to >>build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address >>allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long. > >Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please >explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the >address space? > >Regards, >-drc > Deja Vu. Again. Haven't I heard this somewhere before? :-) - paul

3 2

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

How much attention is paid to how blocks are being used...??? Why doesn't the Internic require that Class A delegates, use those addresses rather than addresses from other parts of the spectrum...??? For example, why are name servers allowed in 192 and 204...as shown below...??? It would be easy for the Internic to have a policy that does not allow the following... @@@@@@@@@@@@@ $ whois 12.0.0.0 AT&T Bell Laboratories (NET-ATT) 6200 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43213 Netname: ATT Netnumber: 12.0.0.0 Coordinator: Martin, Lisa (LM283) Lisa.Nowak.Martin(a)ATT.COM 614-860-3409 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: GW1.ATT.COM 192.20.239.133 GW4.ATT.COM 204.179.186.34 NS.RESEARCH.ATT.COM 192.20.225.4 Record last updated on 30-Jan-96. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Should companies be given recognition for "Internet Ecology" efforts...??? Hewlett-Packard Company (NET-HP-INTERNET) 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Netname: HP-INTERNET Netnumber: 15.0.0.0 Coordinator: Milligan, Michael (MM53) milli(a)HP.COM +1 408 746 5399 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: HP.COM 15.255.152.4 HPCUOC.CUP.HP.COM 15.255.208.5 HPFCLA.FC.HP.COM 15.254.48.2 HPLB.HPL.HP.COM 15.255.59.2 RELAY.HP.COM 15.255.152.2 Record last updated on 16-Aug-95. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Naperville, IL ---------- From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 8:49 PM To: Michael Dillon Cc: 'com-priv list'; 'NANOG List'; 'NIC Registry list'; davidc(a)teckla.apnic.net Subject: Re: Allocation of IP Addresses >> Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues. >Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one >RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's? All 3 registries have essentially the same policy with respect to the growth of new blocks. However, given InterNIC's load, the end effect may be different (remember, InterNIC receives approximately 50 new ISP requests per week -- how much space should they reserve for new ISPs?). >> What business issues are you talking about? >Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to >build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address >allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long. Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the address space? Regards, -drc

2 1

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Browning 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

>From: David R. Conrad[SMTP:davidc@apnic.net] >Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 6:50 PM > >>> Bullshit. The InterNIC is very much aware of global routing issues. >>Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one >>RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's? > >All 3 registries have essentially the same policy with respect to the >growth of new blocks. However, given InterNIC's load, the end effect >may be different (remember, InterNIC receives approximately 50 new ISP >requests per week -- how much space should they reserve for new ISPs?). > >>> What business issues are you talking about? >>Basically, the market demand is INCREDIBLY HIGH and businesses want to >>build up infrastructure to meet this demand but the Internic IP address >>allocation procedures are too confusing and take too long. > >Your proposal is? If you say charging for address space, please >explain what would stop deep pocket companies from buying up all the >address space? The answer is to have published, objective criteria, consistently applied, with a defined appeal process and accountability. It's hard to play by the rules if you don't know what they are, and one has only to look at the /14 allocation to @Home to realize that the "slow start" rules do not apply to everyone equally. -- Jim Browning <jfbb(a)ATMnet.net>

2 1

RE: Those 6 more As
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

$ whois netblk-athome @Home (NETBLK-ATHOME) 385 Ravendale Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 Netname: ATHOME Netblock: 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 Coordinator: Mockapetris, Paul V. (PM1) pvm(a)HOME.NET 415-944-7200 415-944-7221 (FAX) 415-944-8501 Domain System inverse mapping provided by: TELLER.HOME.NET 206.15.25.1 NS1.GEO.NET 192.231.42.2 Record last updated on 24-Jan-96. The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. ---------- From: Sanjay Dani[SMTP:sanjay@professionals.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 10:12 AM To: tli(a)cisco.com; bmanning(a)isi.edu; nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: ejk(a)nitrous.digex.net; cidrd(a)iepg.org Subject: Re: Those 6 more As >58% whois 24.0.0.0 >@Home (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 >Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-24) RESERVED-24 > 24.4.0.0 - 24.255.255.0 On a related topic: I am guessing that this is the first allocation given to @Home by the InterNIC. I wonder how @home influenced the NIC's "slow start" procedure and acquired a /14 when the first allocation for every other ISP is /22 through /19. What works for a company that does not (yet) have a single customer ? Marketing hype, an ambitious business plan, impressive VC lineup, media hype or the presense of a highly respected routing expert ? I would like to know how we can "buy" addresses.

2 1

RE: Those 6 more As
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Here is some HTML for your reference pages... Jim Fleming Naperville, IL @@@@@@@ <HTML> <TITLE>Internet Address Space Allocation</TITLE> <BODY BGCOLOR=#DDDDDD TEXT=#0000DD LINK=#DD0000 VLINK=#FF3300> <HR> <P> <CENTER> <H2>Internet Protocol Address Space Allocation</H2> <TABLE BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=2 CELLPADDING=2> <CAPTION><B>(Updated March 1, 1996)</B></CAPTION> <TR> <TH>Prefixes</TH> <TH>Registry</TH> <TH>Purpose</TH> <TH>#<BR>A-Blocks</TH> <TH>Percent<BR>of Total</TH> <TH>Cumulative<BR>Percentage</TH> <TH>Date<BR>Allocated</TH> </TR> <TH COLSPAN=7><A HREF="Legacy">Legacy Addresses</A> - 50%</TH>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>0 to 63</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>64</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>25.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>25.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>64 to 95</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>32</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>12.50%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>37.50%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>96 to 126</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>31</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>12.11%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>49.61%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>127</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>1</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.39%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>50.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>128 to 191</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>MIXED</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Various Registries</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>64</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>25.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>75.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>192 to 193</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>MIXED</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Various Registries<BR>Multi-Regional</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>75.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>194 to 195</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>RIPE NCC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Europe</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>76.56%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>196 to 197</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>INTERNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Others</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>77.34%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>198 to 199</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>INTERNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Central and<BR>South America</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>78.13%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>200 to 201</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>APNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Pacific Rim</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>78.91%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>May 1993</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>202 to 203</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>?????</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>?????</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>79.69%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>?????</TD> </TR> <TH COLSPAN=7>North American CIDR Addresses - 1.56%</TH>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>204 to 205</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>INTERNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>North America</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>2</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.78%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>80.47%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>March 1994</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>206</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>INTERNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>North America</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>1</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.39%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>80.86%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>March 1994</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>207</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>INTERNIC</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>North America</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>1</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>.39%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>81.25%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>November 1995</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>208 to 223</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>16</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>6.25%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>87.50%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>224 to 239</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Multicast</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>16</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>6.25%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>93.75%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR>  <TR> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>240 to 255</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>IANA</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>Reserved</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>16</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>6.25%</TD> <TD ALIGN=RIGHT>100.00%</TD> <TD ALIGN=CENTER>September 1981</TD> </TR> </TABLE> <P> <HR> <ADDRESS> <P> </ADDRESS> </BODY> </HTML> @@@@@@@ ---------- From: Sanjay Dani[SMTP:sanjay@professionals.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 10:12 AM To: tli(a)cisco.com; bmanning(a)isi.edu; nanog(a)merit.edu Cc: ejk(a)nitrous.digex.net; cidrd(a)iepg.org Subject: Re: Those 6 more As >58% whois 24.0.0.0 >@Home (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 >Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-24) RESERVED-24 > 24.4.0.0 - 24.255.255.0 On a related topic: I am guessing that this is the first allocation given to @Home by the InterNIC. I wonder how @home influenced the NIC's "slow start" procedure and acquired a /14 when the first allocation for every other ISP is /22 through /19. What works for a company that does not (yet) have a single customer ? Marketing hype, an ambitious business plan, impressive VC lineup, media hype or the presense of a highly respected routing expert ? I would like to know how we can "buy" addresses.

1 0

RE: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Jim Fleming 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

You are NOT "all wet"...your exact conclusions have been reached by others...but the policies do not change... Keep in mind that you are talking about policies which have not been set by a large number of people, or a democratic process... IANA is run by one person, Jon Postel...he is copied here also check out http://www.netsol.com for more information... The Internet (and Internic) have been transformed during the past 12 months into a "big money" game...IP addressess are now very valuable..."routable" IP addresses are even more valuable..."routability" is determined by the ISPs...unfortunately the ISPs use a small percentage of the IP addresses and have very little to say about how they are allocated... Jim Fleming Naperville, IL @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ---------- From: Jim Browning[SMTP:jfbb@atmnet.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 4:06 PM To: 'com-priv list'; 'NANOG List'; 'NIC Registry list' Subject: Allocation of IP Addresses I may be opening a can of worms, and if so, I believe it is one which needs to be opened. If this topic has been beaten to death in the past, then I apologize, however as it is a rapidly evolving topic, it warrants repeated discussion and evaluation. My fundamental questions are: 1. Is InterNIC consistently applying objective criteria in its evaluation of requests for the allocation of IP address blocks? 2. If so, what are the criteria? The INTERNIC IP ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS states that "allocation is based on the ISP's 3 - 6 month requirement and other information the InterNIC deems necessary". There is no detail provided (in any document I have found) of what other information InterNIC deems to be necessary. I find an apparent conflict between established policy and its actual implementation on a day-to-day basis. CIDR dictates that addresses should be aggregated into the largest blocks possible, and that the publishing of extraneous routes be eliminated. In keeping with this, and because of often discussed operational considerations, the minimum size of blocks routed at the NAPs is growing larger and larger. To ease participation at the national level, you must ensure to the fullest extent possible that your address space is routable as a single block. In order to accomplish this, you must obtain either: A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of these options. Due to the shortage of *available* IP addresses (there are of course millions of allocated but unused addresses floating around), InterNIC is using a "slow start" approach which provides incremental increases in total address space, with no guarantee that future increments will be contiguous. This means that the only way to maintain efficient routing is to engage in repeated renumbering of customer addresses to consolidate into increasingly larger blocks. How many times is it reasonable to ask a customer to renumber? Once is certainly reasonable. Twice is questionable. More than that and I would suspect the customer would renumber all right, but as part of shifting to a different ISP. The day to day implementation of policy by the InterNIC has increasingly critical impact on our industry, to the point of controlling who has the opportunity to succeed and who does not. IMHO, it is imperative that: 1. this function be performed in an understandable manner, 2. objective criteria be consistently applied 3. the criteria in use be publicly available, and 4. there be defined mechanisms for the 'appeal' of decisions made in the processing of allocation requests. Recent experience and observation leads me to conclude that these imperatives are perhaps not being met. Am I all wet???? -- Jim Browning <jfbb(a)ATMnet.net> 619/812-2860 Fax 619/812-2867

1 0

Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
by Brett D. Watson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

> On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Jim Browning wrote: > > > A. a single allocation capable of supporting planned growth, or > > B. incremental allocations of *contiguous* blocks > > > > InterNIC's current CIDR allocation practice does not support either of > > these options. > > Here's an idea. Let new ISP's reserve large blocks (say /16's) in 65/8, > 66/8, .... but don't let them actually use these addresses on the global > Internet. Then, the ISP can run a Network Address Translation gateway and > give their customers 65/8 addresses while still using a chunk from their > provider's block. And they can switch providers without forcing their > customers to renumber. Then, after they have demonstrated that they > should be given a /16, open up the block they were given in 65/8 for use > without the NAT. > > Of course, there is one little problem with this.... > > bash$ whois 65 > Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) LOGNET-AS 65 > IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0 > > bash$ whois 96 > Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) JTELS-BEN1-AS 96 > IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0 > > How did these guys get such big chunks of address space reserved? by 'these guys' you mean the air force logistics command? the number you looked up is an aut num, not the network. iana has these reserved, not air force. or i've misinterpreted your question... carbon:~ $ whois -h rs.internic.net asn-jtels Army Finance and Accounting Office (ASN-JTELS) "Fort Ben Harrison Indianapolis, IN 46249-1136 " Autonomous System Name: JTELS-BEN1-AS Autonomous System Number: 96 Coordinator: Reilly, William (RR26) REILLY(a)INDPLS-ASAFM1.ARMY.MIL (COM) (317)543-7179 (DSN) 699-7179 Record last updated on 10-Jan-91. carbon:~ $ whois -h rs.internic.net ASN-LOGNET Air Force Logistics Command (ASN-LOGNET) Logistics Management Systems Center/SYU Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433 Autonomous System Name: LOGNET-AS Autonomous System Number: 65 Coordinator: Anderson, Jerome (JRA18) [No mailbox] (513) 257-4499 (DSN) 787-4499 Record last updated on 10-Jan-91. -brett

1 0

Re: Those 6 more As
by Sanjay Dani 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

>58% whois 24.0.0.0 >@Home (NETBLK-ATHOME) ATHOME 24.0.0.0 - 24.3.255.0 >Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) (RESERVED) (NET-RESERVED-24) RESERVED-24 > 24.4.0.0 - 24.255.255.0 On a related topic: I am guessing that this is the first allocation given to @Home by the InterNIC. I wonder how @home influenced the NIC's "slow start" procedure and acquired a /14 when the first allocation for every other ISP is /22 through /19. What works for a company that does not (yet) have a single customer ? Marketing hype, an ambitious business plan, impressive VC lineup, media hype or the presense of a highly respected routing expert ? I would like to know how we can "buy" addresses.

2 1

allocations/filtering, etc.
by Jeremy Porter 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

I had promised a number of people a paper on economics of route filtering, and I haven't quite got it finished yet. However with regard to current whining, I will post some of the numbers from my current work in progress. I would like to encorage anyone that is working with non-cisco routers, that has information on router limits with regards to memory utilization per prefix, I would like to hear from you. Right now my paper is basied with only numbers I have from various members of Nanog, and my personal numbers in my routers. ----- from "Economics of Route Filtering", Jeremy Porter, Feb 1996, unpublished. ----- Current theory is that a large number of backbone routers will overload when more than about 64,000 prefixes are announced into the global backbone. There are currently about 35,000 networks being announced. With providers filtering routes with prefixes longer than 2^18 bits, with allocations remaining between 207.0.0.0 and 223.255.255.255, we have 17 networks of size 2^8, or 17048 networks of size 2^18. This total is less than the 70,000 "doomsday" routing table. The 2^19 filter length also fulfills the recommendation some people have been making of 2048 prefixes per class A space. This gives us with maximum density 4.4 million hosts on the Internet. With 50% utilization we are still talking about 2.2 million new hosts on the Internet. Currently the reserved spaces have not been allocated except for one notable exception which is a large block anyway. Filtering on just the 2^19 limit gives us a total routing table size between 2.6 million prefixes and 5.3 million prefixes. Given current router technology one could estimate an 8 fold growth in router table size to utilize all 5.3 million prefixes. Thus future routers could need 512 megabytes of memory. This is within the realm of today's technology. Now if we decided that we need our current routers to function, filtering on 2^14 out of 64.0.0.0 - 95.255.255.255 will give an additional 16384 prefixes in a worst case allocation. This is just slightly larger than current routers will hold. With moderate levels of aggregation in 207.0.0.0 - 223.255.255.255 and 64.0.0.0 - 95.255.255.255 we should be able to keep current routers under the doomsday limit. -- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry(a)fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-339-6094 http://www.fc.net

1 0