- Test - lists.nanog.org

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

Interesting AP Article
by Steve Rubin 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Spelling errors are most likely mine, I take no responsibiltiy for the rest of the errors :) --- "Sprint says its being forced to block smaller Internet users" By STEVE ORR Gannett Rochester Newspapers ROCHESTER, N.Y... In a medium where everhboy is supposed to be linked to everyone else, some Internet users are finding that you can't always get there from here. The reason is usurprising: A major Internet service provider, U.S. Sprint, is intentionally blocking users communications. Sprint says it is being forced to do so because of overcrowding on the fast-growing global computer network. Critics say it's a sign of bad things to come. "I see it as being a pissible start of the fragmentation of the Internet. The alarms are starting to be rung." said Kurt Schweitzer, a Rochester Internet consultant who has researched the problem. Sprint is applauded by some for being first to take action to address crowding. But even supporters note that company's approach contradicts one of the Internet's most hallowed premises... that participants will allow the free passage of any and all information, regardless of its origin or destination. "This is unusual. It's contrary to the cooperative approach," said David Staudt, an Internet Export at te National Science Foundation in suburban Washington. Sprint is now blocking electronic mail, file transfers, and visits to World Wide Web sites. The people who are affected are mostly new customers who have accounts with smaller Internet serivce providers. No one can say for certain how large the group of blacklisted [oh god] users is, though several knowledgeable people put the number at 10,000 or more nationally and growing daily. Sprint's policy remains little known outside expert circles. But some Internet users can point to several cases where communications are blocked. "Our company is really quite concerned about it," said David Luckett, executive director and vice president of NYSERNet, which sells Internet access to many New York companies and which use Sprint. "I don't think we should be looking at Sprint and pointing fingers, though. The problem Sprint is having today is the same problem that the other major providers will face some day." That problem stems from wild popularity of the Internet. There are so many linked networks and users that the system used to route all the Internet information to destinations has become too complex. "There's been for quite a while within the Internet community some concern about performance problems... caused by this explosive growth," said Sprint spokesman Reg Rowe in Dallas. Internet information is sent in "packets," small bursts of data that are addressed with the numerical ID number of the packets destination. Millions of these packets move through the Internet daily, shepherded by computers called routers that check the addresses and send packets toward their destination the fastest possible way. To do that, routers have complex software that lists all the known addresses and routes to reach them. But that lists of addresses, kwno as a router table, has outgrown the computer memory of many routers, experts say. One solution is to route in blocks, with routers sending all packets with similar addresses to end-user computers for final distribution [huh?] It's similar to a U.S. Postal Service worker looking at a letter whose ZIP code starts with "146" and automaticly sending it to Rochesters central office for distribution, without looking at the street name. Sprint, apparently alone among the big Internet companies, adopted this routing system several months ago. But one drawback is that the addresses must be part of a block controlled by an enduser who handles final distribution. Thats fine for Sprint, MCI and other national Internet service providers that are issued Internet addresses in large blocks. But it leaves out smaller Internet companies that tend to acquire addresses a few at a time. those are the addresses Sprint is blocking. "It's a very emotional topic. They're basically saying that they're not talking to the little guy's anymore," said Liudy Bukys, a computer system administrator at UR. Smaller companies might be able to "sublease" block addresses from larger providers, but their customers would have to change the addresses on their computers, and there would be no guarantee the larger provider wouldn't take back the addresses later. Most of those knowledgeable of the problem agree that the block routing is not a bad way to address overvrowding ... unless you're the one left out in the cold. "What they're doing is a community-spritied thing in concept," Staudt said. "Where I somebody who is unreachable... it would sure look to me like Sprint is trying to force me out of business." -- Steven Eric Rubin - the godfather Aimnet Corporation Senior Network Engineer 2350 Mission College Park (408) 567-3820 x511 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Work: ser(a)aimnet.com Play: ser(a)tch.org URL: http://anarky.tch.org/~ser

3 2

Re: Interesting AP Article
by Paul Ferguson 14 Mar '96

14 Mar '96

Perhaps it is 'interesting' because this issue has made it into the mainstream popular press? - paul At 11:24 PM 3/13/96 +0000, Larry J. Plato wrote: >Steve, > >I am not really trying to flame you but why is this article >interesting? It is really a poorly written rehash of the >filtering policy Sprint has discussed for the last 18 months. >I don't agree w/ Sprint's position but I don't see this >article as being particularly interesting. It's not even >very well written. If anything I find it annoying and >irresponsible that the author did not seem, IMHO, to >research his topic very well. As far as I can tell he neither >asked the opinion of Sprint, or any other major NSP, as to why >someone would do this. Yet he had the call to title his >article "Sprint says ..." > >I think this is sloppy, yellow, journalism. > >Larry Plato >I speak for myself only >#include <std.disclaimer> >

1 0

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

14 Mar '96

At 04:43 PM 3/13/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote: > >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. > Well, I knew this topic would come up sooner or later, since it was discussed briefly in LA/IETF at the CIDRD WG meeting(s). A snippet from the LA/IETF CIDRD minutes: [snip] Yakov Class A Allocation Guidelines ============================= Motivation Observation 1: 192/3 is 1/8 of the total IPv4 unicast space Observation 2: 64/2 is 1/4 of total IPv4 unicast addrses space Hypothesis1: at some point we will exhaust 192/3 Hypothesis2: at some point we will need to allocate out of 64/2 Observation3: It appears safe to allocate out of 64/2 based on experience documented in RFC???? on Class A Experiment Recommendation allocation of /17 or larger should be done out of 64/2 allocation of /18 or smaller should be done out of 192/3 Comments? Randy: Do you mean start this now? YR: No, only when we decide it necessary. Eliot Lear: Can big ISPs get bigger blocks? YR: Yes, it should allow them to. EL: Do we need to advise Registries? EL: Should 192/3 be declared unroutable? YR: Perhaps part of it. BManning: I would like to attach a rider on this. I think before anyone gets anything out of 64/2 that they should agree to give back their old blocks. TonyLi: Is there some reason not to start alloc 64/2 immediately? YR: We don't have to yet, so perhaps we should not. TonyLi: Pressure from international carriers to get large blocks. ELear: We should wait as long as possible to age legacy systems. Tony: There weren't any big problems in the RFC. BManning: Some things were not tested. Only routing protocols were tested. We couldn't figure out a reliable way to test interior routing. We should hold off a little longer before we jump into this. NoelChiappa: We can't get rid of all the legacy systems. Is the cost of hurting the legacy equipment less than the benefit of 64/2. [general discussion of when we should implement this. Now or wait a little longer for legacy systems to expire.] [discussion of route-able v unroute-able prefixes. Will certain prefix ranges be declared unroute-able in future?] MKosters: @home has a /14 out of net 24, so we have already allocated out of Class A. BrianC: Suppose IANA decides to do this, and some joe-ISP asks for a /14. We haven't given the Registries any guidance on how to allocate. RConrad: Policy most likely to remain the "power of 2" increase. The size of the ISP is irrelevant with this scheme. Cathy of @home complained that Sean won't take 24/14 only 24/8. Sean Doran raised the issue of charging for prefixes. Tony advised we leave this for further discussion on the mailing list. [snip] - paul

1 0