Re: NSP ... New Information

[bmanning () ISI EDU (Bill Manning)]

> : I'd like to see them start allocating recovered space from 192/8 in 
> : /22 or maybe /21 sizes.
>
> I asked for this and was treated like a complete idiot. There are a lot 
> of small blocks in legacy space that I'd like to see some system for 
> transferring between small guys who never used them and small guys who
> desperately need PI space for multihoming. Using DNS TTL fields is just 
> ridiculous when there are much better technical solutions like, uh, BGP.
> A lot of people I know don't need /19s and don't want to waste the space
> (people have already mentioned this). Also, there is no incentive for 
> returning IPv4 space if you know it'll just sit idle anyway.
>
> The function of the InterNIC can be as an intermediary, verifying, as 
> usual, that the requestor needs the space.
>
> -Tung-Hui Hu
> hhui () arcfour com

I am sorry that you felt treated like a "complete idiot". As there are still
several registries that claim be be authoritative for 192/8, this is a tough
block in which to start the piara experiment.  It many ways, it still is
like a toxic waste area... although with existant routing policy by ISPs
its treated less like a toxic hazard and more like ambrosia, with one and
all declareing this space to be special and above policy filtering constraints.

Again, for more details on the history behind this discussion, pleae check the
piara bof archives and old nanog notes.  There are even some good tips on
how to support multihoming w/o 192 space.

In my humble opinion, its much better to clean up the whole range first and
then re-release it as a clean /8, than haphazard redelgation. 

And yes, there is an incentive to return space.  For some its the principle
of the thing, a cooperative internet is a growing internet. For others it
may be financial, with the expense of renewing lease delegations. (See the
naipr/arin lists for more details).

I hope this helps out some.  I'd apprciate your comments.




-- 
--bill