Sean Doran <smd@icp.net> writes: Slow-start is a good idea, and we have the RIPE /19 legacy to prove it.
It is not legacy. We are using it in 193/8 and 194/8 and currently we do not intend to do differently in any new /8 we might start. /18 is just too much of an allocation for a garage with a couple of <your favourite modem hub>. We cannot and will not refuse to allocate address space to such garages until someone comes up with a *resonable* policy of what is an eligible garage. I can understand that some sugest that a reasonable policy is to require connections to a at least two <major transit provider>, but I postulate that <major transit provider> can never be defined in a rasonable way.
So please define which garages shall be eligible for an allocation and get the RIPE community to agree. Mind this is easier than the Internet community.
There are probably a number of ways, but none hard enoughfor a determined garage to get around. Charging for delegations should work better; hey, InterNIC has just decided it's ok for it to charge for domain names, why not IP address space?! But how would you set your prices?? What's more costly to the net? Large unused blocks assigned to folk who won't use them efficiently? Or lots of small, hard to route blocks that cost large providers money? Perhaps instead of charging a fee for address delegations the registries might require a security deposit. This deposit would be given back when the applicant gives enough proof of using its address space well enough (e.g. customer lists with phone numbers, addresses, and IP address space delegated to them). A fee could then be charged to the applicant for the registries' troubles verifying the applicant's claims. The fee would be relative to the amount of work the registry would have to do to check out the applicant. The deposit could be a sum that is related to the size of the block in question (e.g. $100 for a class C, $2000 for a /20, $5,000 for a /19, etc...). When an applicant has proven reliably that it can effeciently use its delegations (i.e. when the applicant has proven it's not a garage business), then the whole process might be relaxed or done away with for that applicant. Anyways, if InterNIC told noone of its plans to charge for domain names, perhaps they'll soon drop a bomb shell about their plans to charge for address space delegation; as I mention above, it's hard to price address space delegations when there are two large costs: one proportional to the size of the delegation, and on inversely proportional to the same. [I don't know that the InterNIC told noone of its plans to charge for domain name registration and use; but apparently they didn't tell NANOG, which is important enough.]
Now we need to look at whether this can be done with /18s without exhausting IPv4 too soon, as there are some real concerns about doubling the maximum number of prefixes many routers will see.
My experience tells me that it is too big. We are not doing slow start long enough however to quantify that.
Which is why I'm proposing that some pools of space be set aside for slow-start allocations of /21s, /20s and /19s.
| So how about agreeing on pools of address space for small allocations? I think you found a good topic!
Check out ripe-127.
I will, but remember, if we're to agree on setting aside pools of space for slow-start, then it should be done in a consistent manner, so that filters can be written a bit more easily. This means setting aside, say, 207/8 for slow-start pools, and then breaking up that /8 into smaller blocks for slow-start allocation of each of the three or four sizes used in slow-start (/21, /20, /19) and then delegating sub-blocks of those sub-blocks to the various registries; if a /8 is too small for this, then two or thre /8s should be set aside for it. Registries and providers must agree to some extent on the above methinks.
Daniel
Nick