Re: 206.82.160.0/22

[David R Conrad <davidc () iij ad jp>]

> The Internic is the sole and ultimate assigning entity of IP space, 

Ummm, no.  RIPE-NCC and APNIC also assign address space as regional
registries, CANET, JPNIC, KRNIC, and AUNIC/Telstra assign space as
national registries.  One might claim the IANA has the ultimate
responsibility regarding address space, but this is somewhat
irrelevant to this discussion.

> and
> Sprint specifically rejected any support for me or my provider in obtaining
> at least a /20 assignment from the Internic, 

Why didn't you obtain the /20 from Sprint?

> I was given this /22 assignment
> (while continuous usage of the link ensures this space will be used
> up in about 3-4 weeks, with /26 assignments going to BelCom's leased line
> customers) even though the Internic knew better about necessary route
> aggregation.

I'm confused.  You were given a /22 by InterNIC which is (presumably)
provider independent, and which included a statement from InterNIC
that says that routing is not guaranteed (which should, of course, be
obvious) and you seem to be claiming they didn't understand about
route aggregation.  I would assume InterNIC encouraged you to obtain
your address space from your service provider (Sprint) so your routes
could be aggregated in your service provider's block.  Are you saying
that Sprint refused to allocate the space you required?

> I consider it extremely hostile from Sean Doran and hence Sprint to suddenly

Sean has been talking about this for at least 9 months.

> come and announce filtering of just those networks they are announcing on
> their own, ENCOURAGING OTHER NSPs TO DO LIKEWISE, bypass the ultimate
> arbitrator (Internic) , 

No.  InterNIC is only the ultimate arbitrator of who a particular
address is delegated to within the blocks that InterNIC has authority.
This has absolutely nothing to do with routability of those addresses.
There is no ultimate arbitrator for routability -- it is a cooperative
effort by all service providers.  Due to routers falling over, some
service providers are not interested in being as cooperative as they
once were.

> I can only
> strongly discourage the implementation of the prefix filtering for prefixes
> longer than /18 in 206.* through 239.*

What is your suggestion to reduce the routing overload?

Regards,
-drc