Why did we do CIDR? (RE: Confussion over multi-homing)
On Thu, 14 September 2000, Paul Froutan wrote:
What you can do is get permission from the ISP that provides you the IPs (say ISP A) so you can have other ISPs announce your blocks. You also need to get ISP A to deaggregate your block and announce it separately into the global BGP table. We did this back in the day and it works fine if the ISP giving you IPs is somewhat reasonable and helpful.
If folks are going to deaggregate the addresses and announce multiple routes anyway, why are we going through the pain of ARIN policies. Wouldn't it be better to allocate the appropriately sized address in the first place?
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:50:07PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
If folks are going to deaggregate the addresses and announce multiple routes anyway, why are we going through the pain of ARIN policies. Wouldn't it be better to allocate the appropriately sized address in the first place?
Yes, it would. It would seem ARIN should allocate small blocks on a trade-in only policy. You can get a /24, but when you go to a /23 you _will_ renumber, and soforth up to a /19 or so, at which time when you need more you get an additional prefix. That way you limit it to 1 route per ASN for small players, and everyone can multihome. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
At 06:46 PM 9/14/00 -0400, you wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:50:07PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
If folks are going to deaggregate the addresses and announce multiple routes anyway, why are we going through the pain of ARIN policies. Wouldn't it be better to allocate the appropriately sized address in the first place?
Yes, it would. It would seem ARIN should allocate small blocks on a trade-in only policy. You can get a /24, but when you go to a /23 you _will_ renumber, and soforth up to a /19 or so, at which time when you need more you get an additional prefix.
That way you limit it to 1 route per ASN for small players, and everyone can multihome.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
What an administrative nightmare! Wouldn't it make more sense if ARIN would at least reserve some space for people saying they need more? They could always re-allocate it later. Renumbering can be tough, especially if you're growing fast... Brantley ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________ Download Now http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html Request a CDROM 1-800-333-3633 ___________________________________________________________
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:46:31 -0400 From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Why did we do CIDR? (RE: Confussion over multi-homing)
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 02:50:07PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
If folks are going to deaggregate the addresses and announce multiple routes anyway, why are we going through the pain of ARIN policies. Wouldn't it be better to allocate the appropriately sized address in the first place?
Yes, it would. It would seem ARIN should allocate small blocks on a trade-in only policy. You can get a /24, but when you go to a /23 you _will_ renumber, and soforth up to a /19 or so, at which time when you need more you get an additional prefix.
That way you limit it to 1 route per ASN for small players, and everyone can multihome.
One route per AS would be nice, however, renumbering every time additional space is required is just not possible in some cases. It seems every time I turn around, I find myself requesting more address space, and according to ARIN policies, demand=supply (ie, if you can prove you have a need for it, you will get it).
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
--- Brad brad@americanisp.net
participants (4)
-
Brad -
Brantley Jones -
Leo Bicknell -
Sean Donelan